elas

Chuck Norris (Lepton) Where does anti matter go? I read somewhere that for every particle of matter ''created'' there is an antimatter equvalent. So what happened to the antimatter? Last edited by Chuck Norris; September 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 AM. swansont (Shaken, not stirred) Physics Expert Moderator That's one of the big unanswered questions of cosmology and particle physics. Antimatter can change into matter in some rare circumstances, called CP (charge+parity) violation, but the observed events (in Kaons and B mesons) do not happen often enough to account for the disparity. Pasted from <http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43674> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accountants, Stock controllers and Police officers know that a negative quantity refers to an entity, property or quantity that is missing; the missing item itself, when found; has a positive presence. All three (accountant, stock controller and police officer) realise that negative entities cannot exist in the real world; negative quantities are a mathematical statement that can only be explained with the discovery of the missing (positive) reality. The cause of the missing anti-matter is explained using the gravitational interaction. The role of gravitational force in particle structure is explained in the equation mr=g/2 (note that this equation originates from the mathematics used to construct a balanced field graph) (see: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40962) The balanced field model can also explain atomic element structure see: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 The first requirement in the construction of a stable particle is that the internal forces are balanced in both direction and quantity. Figs. A and B show G force and anti-G force for bodies without a central mass. (The gravity field being a partial vacuum field where vacuum is opposed by the elasticity of matter). The second requirement is that the particles are structurally sound; the anti-particle has its maximum vacuum force at the centre of its radius and is therefore structurally unsound. The particle has its maximum vacuum force at the centre of its diameter and is therefore structurally sound. The elementary particle in its anti-particle charged state has a limited life time due to its unsound structure; that unsound structure, causes the vacuum field of positively charged states of the elementary particle to collapse converting the positive charged elementary particle into its '0' charge state (i.e. matter without a three dimensional vacuum field; the vacuum field is present in the form of a dimensionless '0' point). Experimenters do not observe the separate force and anti-force shown in figs. A and B, they (the experimenters) observe the interaction of force and anti-force as shown in figs. C and D, where the sum of the force values are equal in force and opposite in direction (see table); this 1:1 ratio is found in all charged states of the elementary particle and is given a nominal charge value of 1. Anti-matter as defined in the Standard model is not found in nature because it does not exist in the negative form proposed by the Standard model interpretation. The difference between actual values (figs. A and B) and observed values (figs. C and D) gives rise to the missing matter known as dark matter. The left hand scale is in ev. The bottom scale is the radius in arbitrary values (to shorten download time). The right hand scale is the sum of the forces measured at regular intervals along the radius as shown in the red box at the end of the table; e has a nominal value of -1; p has a nominal value of +1. The 'mass' value (510998.9ev) is common to all four graphs. (It is possible in MS Excel, to create the graphs using actual values but, I find the result cannot be transferred to Adobe Illustrator or copied to a web page hence the use of some arbitrary values).

While I agree whole heartedly with you, be careful with personal messages; on two ocassions I sent a personal message only to have them stopped because the administrators dissagreed with the contents. On both occassions I was given a 'warning'.

According to Swansont and Severian there is no answer in 'accepted science' science to the question submitted.

Sorry to interrupt this debate but it annoys me that at the top of each forum is the following message: Hello elas, It appears that you have not posted on Science Forums for over a month. Why not take a few moments to ask a question, help another member or just participate in one of our many discussions? I know from past experience that if I give a simple mathematical explanation such as in this case, the cause of negative charge (in reality it does not exist i.e. it is apparent not real); it will quickly be transferred to ‘speculations’ or ‘trash’ accompanied by a ‘warning’. So will someone please delete the message so that I can enjoy reading the forums in silence, without irritation? Thanks in anticipation, elas mod note: moved from antimatter discussion to its own thread

See reply 4 on page 1 then go to http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2708 sec. 3.2 and note that I do give referrences where required. Please note that this is a debating forum not a slanging match. Because some of my relations work in the education field, I occasionally get the opportunity to debate my ideas with interested parties but, cannot refer them to Science Forums because replies like yours are a source of embarrassment; objections, counter arguments and constructive criticisms carry more weight when they are worded with restraint.

See: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40962

mr = G/2 shows that all elementary particles are compactions of a single elementary particle, it has been shown that the equation mr = G/2 also applies to composite particles and astronomical bodies; the only exception (due to their unique shell structure) being atoms. Therefore it is necessary to show that atomic nuclei are compactions, and determine the cause of compaction. Isotopes of 4Be have one halo neutron and therefore one to six nuclear neutrons; as the volume of the halo neutron is far greater than the volume of the nucleus, it is clear that nucleons and halo neutron are in different compaction states. Graph 1 illustrated that there is some relationship between the number of inner field electrons and the number of neutrons. On each shell the number of inner electrons remains constant while the number of neutrons increases opening up the possibility that neutrons play a part in determining atomic radii. The graph on reply No. 10 illustrated that possibility. The aim now is to show that the latest research allows a small advance to be made. A paper by W Nortershauser et al (arXiv:0809.2607v4 [nuc-ex] 5 Feb 2009) contains a graph (fig.3) that shows how the nuclear charge radius of Be changes with changes in the number of neutrons. On the atomic charge compaction scale changes occur on a larger scale; there is a radius at which the number of neutrons is sufficient to prevent collapse which is close to the limit of radial expansion, the determining factor being the ratio of inner field electrons to the minimum number of (isotope) neutrons; adding more neutrons adds macroscopically to the radius of stable isotopes; further additions leads to instability and decay. The graph below illustrates that changes that take place on the atomic compaction scale follow the same pattern as changes that occur on the nuclear compaction scale. The number of inner field electrons is divided by the minimum isotope number and compared with the atomic radii. The graph by Nortershauser et al does not have any data for 9Be (second from left) removing the data for the equivalent entry on the atomic graph gives the position shown by the dashed red line for comparison with the ab inito No Core Shell Model line on the graph by Nortershauser et al. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nearest Uni.librarydoes not carry journals. Access to journals via internet subscription services, not open to public; students can search for abstracts but need permission from tutors to download full copies.

A misunderstanding has occured mainly due to the way I worded the statement referred to. Before replying further I intend to complete the search for the data referred to in the references mentioned in my previous reply. UK subjects will know that it usually takes about six weeks to obtain copies of journal papers from the British Library, therefore some delay in reply is unavoidable.

At last I grasp the points you are making. But this amateur is not entirely wrong, first I never claimed the amount the atomic radius is affected by the number of neutrons was large or small, my quest, in part; was to discover its quantity. The following extract is taken from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03048.htm There must be some small effect. I do know of the effect of isotopes on the dimensions of crystals of atoms. The atoms all attach themselves in a regular manner, a crystal structure. This mainly would have to do with the size of the atom, its chemical bonding etc, but has a tiny isotope effect, see Physical Review B, Vol 38, No. 8,9/15/1988, Effect of isotope concentration on the lattice parameters of germanium perfect crystals, R.C. Buscheret et. al. Steve Ross Secondly my claim was that the neutron effect is not confined the nucleus, but to a definable area around the nucleus. See my latest find: http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09022053-atomic-nucleus-beryllium-is-three-times-as-large-as-normal-due-halo It would seem that the data I need is out there somewhere, there are papers and books to be purchased as and when the money is available; meanwhile I would appreciate your view of the Steve Ross reply and the above reference.

All radii given by Emsley are classified as 'nuclear data', but he does not define that as applying only to the nucleus. I use 'atomic radii' the measurement found by experiment. I have yet to find or be given a reference to a work that states specifically that 'all isotopes of a given element have the same radius'.

John Cuthber I apologise for an incorrect submission, the correct submission reads: Emsley gives the radius of Hydrogen as 154 picometres, Wikipedia gives the radius of Deuterium as 0.96 fm. Taken together with your find it would seem that radii are indeed determined in part by the number of neutrons, however; there is insufficient data to establish this with certainty, or allow any improvement to be made to the table used to construct my last graph. The interesting point is (as the graph shows) that the mathematical relationship is with the number of electrons in the inner half of the shells see: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 for details. The equation that swansont suggested further work on is mr=G/2 (see http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40962 ) I shall take swansont’s advice and return to work on the equation, I will not give up completely on atomic structure, but will keep a look out for data that will allow further progress to be made. Thank-you for your help which is much appreciated, elas

According to The Elements by John Emsley the above statement is not correct, please give a reference to your source.

It does not seem strange to me, on the contrary in view of the change to graph 2, made as a result of your reply; it is exactly what I expected. Your reply made me realise that there is a minimum number of neutrons (required to prevent collapse) and a maximum number of neutrons that can be contained by the inner field electrons. This is part of the reason why the number of inner field electrons changes in the steps shown in my Structural Table of Elements. Note that in the ammended graph the line representing 'inner electrons divided by the average number of neutrons (ie/ave N) goes from below the radius line for elements 11 to 18 and above the line for elements 55 to 82 as the neutron:electron density ratio changes. The radii of elements 1 to 10 have a different structural sequence explained in my interpretation of 3dimensional fractions. Elements above 82 are known to be radiactive causing the distortion mentioned in the explanation to graph 1. Am I correct in assuming that H and D are hydrogen and deuterium? I included pair bond length (but only pair bond length) as a supplement to a table of particle radii submitted earlier. At that time I had not worked on atomic radii.

I have answered the only part of his statement I can find a reference to: "If atomic (or ionic) radii". He has not answered my request for references to his first statement, or given any references for following opinions. The quality of 'experts' replying to this thread falls far short of the example set by swansont; there is a difference between 'debate' and 'unsubstantiated statements of opinion'. That said his first reply lead to an improvement as shown in the following graph, further improvement should be possible.

Ion separation by selective crystallization: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS5-4W79J1R-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=954019848&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7fc0c17ae55595b1f67d49d93328b0ae

Many years ago in a thread titled Why all the nutcases asssisted by an university programme leader (in SSK), I researched and submitted an essay the gist of which was that QT is defined as philosophical mathematical prediction. The experts at that time conceded I was correct. Thank-you for clarifying your statement, in future will be more careful when referring to your statement. I wrongly assumed that you were implying that such data did not exist at present; will return to that when this thread has run its course. Having had time to think about it I know realise that John Cuthber's reply points the way to an improved solution that might result in an equation for atomic radii; must check this out first. regards elas

In 2003 I opened a thread requesting information on the radii of isotopes and received seven references all dealing with atomic radii and not one mention of isotope radii; if you can supply a reference to your statement underlined above, it would be greatly appreciated. There are many people who make such comments without given a constructive or counter argument. I prefer to rely on the comments of those who offer constructive criticism, this is a debating forum not a smart alec comment forum. It is also the forum for theory speculation. The values used to construct graph 1 are taken from The Elements by John Emsley and the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Graph 2 is simply graph 1 in a different order. Graph 2 can be simplified as follows: This debate is about the way in which the cause of the radii values is determined; constructive critcisms and helpful comments (preferably with references) are the correct mode of debate. Your comment is much appreciated and I look forward to your reply to my request. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPostscript http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41817 Severian That is why the Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation. There is no way to test it, so it is really just philosophy. Looking to see what is happening on other forums I came across the above. It is now many years since there was a many page debate on this very point where I was the only one claiming that QT is philosophy (I eventually won). The background to this debate was my claim that with the advances made since the Copenhagen conference it is now possible to construct a classical theory of particle structure. Swansont recently agreed that I have written a (classical) testable theory of particle structure, this thread on atomic radii is an attempt to carry the particle structure concept into atomic structure.

Atomic Radii This thread continues the development of the concept outlined in a thread dealing with a novel table of elements that can be found on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 The next step was to compare the number of inner (ie) and outer electrons (oe) with the number of neutrons (N). Arranging the outer electrons in increasing order of numbers produced the result shown in graph 1 This shows that inner electrons and neutrons have similarities in their patterns; further investigation found that the number of inner electrons divided by the number of neutrons produced a graph line (blue diamonds, graph 2) similar to a graph line of atomic radii (brown squares graph 2). The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii, but it (the e:N line) does not determine the nature of the elements. The blue dash lines show that the inner electrons and neutrons are compressed as the total number of particles increases. Note that elements of atomic number 89 to 92 inclusive no longer descend below the blue dash line indicating the limit of natural compression. The outer electron bands, between the red dash lines are not compressed and the vertical distance between the red dash lines is the same from left to right. But, within the band some compression does occur as shown by the dotted red line; this (the dotted red line) marks the major changes in element nature. In shells 3,4, and 5 the dotted red line marks the switch over to the end 6 group (noble gases, halogens, non-metals, metalloids and other metals). In the 6th shell it marks the change from lanthanides to transition metals (with one exception). Note that, as is to be expected; the radioactive elements disrupt the pattern of the outer electrons, but not the inner electrons (elements of atomic Nos. 81 to 92). In conclusion it can be stated that in the proposed balanced field model it can be shown the neutrons play a part in determining atomic radii, but neutrons play no part in determining the nature of the elements; that (the nature of the elements) is determined by the outer electrons of each element. Compression is largely limited to the inner electrons although some compression does occur in the outer electrons where (outer electron) compression plays a part in the determination of the nature of the elements. Taking together with the thread on the Table of Elements it provides a novel way of explaining atomic structure that combined with earlier threads on particle structure demonstrate that structure (not to be confused with actions) can be explained in a classical manner using one elementary particle and one elementary force. Graph 2

The current explanation for the nature of the elements uses the outermost one or two electrons and also contains 'exceptions'. A graph of one section of the proposed balanced field structure shows that the inner field electrons determine the class of the elements, while the outer field electrons determine the variation within each class - using all the electrons and requiring no exceptions. The graph below shows a sub-group of Transition Metals and below that is a graph of all the elements with the sub-group of Transtion Metals shown in a box. (1H and 2He do not appear on the graph due to the large scale).

swansont has recently agreed that I have proposed a testable classical theory of particle structure. I have used the same balanced field structure to create a Table of Elements. Your queery made me realise that I had not presented my proposal with sufficient clarity. The following chart is an attempt to improve the clarity. 1) It shows that the first two elements and the last six elements on each shell form separate (horizontal) groups; that means that elements of a different class cannot occur until there are more the eight elements in the veritcal groups. 2) The last six elements are divided into two sub-groups. Note that 5 and 6 are similar in arrangement to the first two elements on each shell; that means that shell structure begins and ends with a fixed pair structure. 3) We see that shells occur in pairs. 4) The table can be used to predict the natue of elements 104 to 117 inclusive as shown in the extreme right col. with '?'; (we know that 118 is a Noble gas). 5) The table includes Lanthinides and Actinides in the main table and not, as in current tables; as an add on at the bottom.

Correct on first point. Google search entry - UN Anti-Apartheid resolutions - result -Resolution 1761 Some people are as lazy as a beach bum!

Beach bums do not keep records! For eleven years I lived with the people mentioned, barbequed with the son of the US official who sold passports; listened to the remarkable stories of some of the South African whites as they explained what life was like under the last Boer goverment. Together with the Carribean white settlers they formed a fascinating group of people; all were, or were the decsendents of, people fleeing from there home country. From three grandsons of the private secretary to the last tsar of Russia to the descendents of a Portugese peasant who begged a ships captain to take his children to the Carribean in the hope that they would find a better life; they never saw their parents again but, like the Russians their descendants are now important members of the Carribean bussiness community; so now, are some of the South Africans. I just sat quietly and listened, I provided rum punch and my wife sometimes provided real Cornish pasties. It was a price worth paying to listen to people from totally different backgrounds talking about different ways of life in a manner that I never new existed and never seems to be explained to quite the same intensity by the media. Added to this were the American visitors, my very first charter consisted of two elderly husbands and wives who had not previously met. After a few drinks it was revealed that one was a retired US navy destroyer commander and the other had been the capain of a German U-boat; I never got another word in!. But it just goes to show who the USA allowed in at one time and who is refused entry at a later time.

I stand corrected. With apologies elas Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged UN resolution.

As part of the anti-aparthide agreement S African whites were banned from all forms of travel to a large number of countries including USA, UK and all Carribean islands. To cease being hunted they bribed Carribean officials and sought to change their nationality in order to travel and work freely in other countries. Becomming illegal immigrants was not something they were prepared to accept, it was regarded as to risky. You need to look at it from the point of view of the hunted reared in what was virtually a police state and not as a free citizen of a democratic country. There is still a vast market for illegal passports as I am sure any US customs official would confirm. The US is soft on immigrants from South America for political reasons, this does not extend to other countries to anything like the same degree. Do you know an illegal immigrant from eastern Europe or Africa who will freely admit to his or her status? They live in fear of discovery and deportment, it is a completely different mental atitude to that of Latinos.