Dr Who

Are you saying that these decays have never been observed, i.e. they are only theoretically possible? If so, why have they been included in what appears to be an experimental paper?

I am getting the information from "The NUBASE evaluation of nuclear and decay properties" (which was published in Nuclear Physics A and according to google has been cited 602 times). I have also used periodictable.com as it gives the same information, just in a graphical format. In terms of the values being more than 100%, I assumed this was for presentation, since 100% looks significantly better than 99.9997%. Also, I know we are talking very low percentages here, but from this paper, it implied that these radioactive decays do occur and thus I was wondering how come they are able to go through, what is referred to as a stable isotope.

Why is it that some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes? For example manganese-54 can beta-negative decay to iron-54 (a stable isotope), which then double beta-positives to chromium-54. The same thing occurs with potassium-40, which beta-negative decays to calcium-40 (a stable isotope), which then double beta-positives to argon-40. Moreover, I would have expected calcium-40 to be very stable since it is doubly magic.

Thanks for your comment Timo, I will have a look around in those areas. However, do you know of any particular experiments that I should look for?

I know there was an experiment done where high energy electrons where fired at protons. From the scattered pattern produced by the electrons, it was found that protons have a non-uniform distribution of mass and charge. This helped to confirm the existence of quarks because they would case the proton to have a non-uniform distribution of mass and charge. However, I was wondering what other experimental evidence is there that quarks exist? Thanks in advance for your comments.

Thanks, you have been very helpful.

I take it from the short answer, that although it is the nuclear structure that creates the magnetic moment, we don't know how yet?

OK, that is a fair argument upon why the magnetic moment of some isotopes is unknown, thank you. Do you think though that the magnetic moment is created by the nuclear structure?

It could be that nobody has measured them, but this argument seems a little flawed to me. Firstly the magnetic moments of a vast number of isotopes (many of which are unstable) have been measured. Plus the isotopes that I have previously mentioned are only 1 or 2 neutrons few or too many from being a stable, so we are not talking extremely exotic isotopes. Secondly, the magnetic moment for a good number of the isotopes are known only when they are in an excited state and thus more than half the work has already been done at some point in the past. Thirdly, some of these isotopes have very long half life, e.g. nickel-59 (which is one of the isotopes where a magnetic moment is known for one of its excited states) which has a half life of 100,000 years. Moreover, we could compare this isotope with isotopes that have a known magnetic moment, but short half lives, e.g. carbon-15 (half life of 2.5 seconds) or boron-8 (half life of 770 milliseconds). Do you think the fact that these isotopes have an unknown magnetic moment, might relate some how to their nuclear structure, e.g. they have two different configurations that produce the same radioactive decay, but each of them has a different magnetic moment?

Thanks Enthalpy for the reference, however it doesn't really answer the question, of why the magnetic moments of some isotopes are unknown? Nickel-59 was given just as an example. In fact your reference does not give a magnetic moment for nickel-59 in its ground state. Other isotopes (close to the stable isotopes for each element) with unknown magnetic moments are: H4 (hydrogen-4), He5, Be7, Be11, B9, N16, F18, Mg27, Al29, Si31, P30, P33, S37, Cl39, Ar41, Ca49, Ti51, V52, V53, Cr55, Mn57, Fe53, Fe55, Co61, Ni59, Ni63, Cu67, Zn69, Zn71, Ga70, Ga73, Ge77, As73, As77, Se81, Se83, Br83, Y88, Zr93, Zr97, Nb91, Nb92, Nb94, Mo91, Mo93, Mo101, Tc97, Tc98, Tc100, Rh101, Rh104, Pd103, Pd107, Pd109, Pd11, Cd117, Te121, I128, La136, La141, Ce135, Pr139, Pr140, Nd151, Pm146, Sm155, Gd161, Ho 167, Yb177, Lu178, Hf173, Hf181, Ta180, W179, W181, W185, Re189, Os185, Ir195, Pt199. Enthalpy's reference, does give the magnetic moment for some of these isotopes, but not in their ground states. It is also interesting to note that some of these isotopes have been missed out in the reference, for example it gives the magnetic moment for Si30 and Si32, but not Si31. I hope this has helped to clarify my question and I'm grateful for any answers or comments. Thanks

I was wondering, how come the magnetic moment of some isotopes are unknown? This cannot be related to the isotope's half life, as nickel-59 has an unknown magnetic moment, but a half life of 100,000 years. Also, I cannot believe that it is the case, that they have not been measured yet. Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure, I totally understand your question, but my theory proposes that all the sub-atomic particles are composed of a fixed frequency of electromagnetic waves. In fact a particles magnetic moment (which can be experimentally measured) is produced by the orientation of the magnetic component in the electromagnetic waves. However these magnetic moments of the different particles can either constructively work together or cancel each other out. This is why some nuclei have magnetic moments, whilst others do not. The same also holds true for the electrons and overall therefore a single atom can have a magnetic field. In magnetic objects, the magnetic field of all the atoms align together, producing an observable magnetic effect. I hope this has answered your question. Also, sorry its taken me a while to answer you but I've been busy.

OK, I understand your point about communication, and this is one of the reasons I came on this site. I understand that you haven't got the time to read it all, but reading http://www.sciencefo...magnetic-waves/ may give you a better understand, of a small part of this work. In terms of how do to calculate the orbit, then assuming that the two masses are uncharged, travelling slowly (with respect to the speed of light), and sufficiently far away from the Schwarzschild radius, then the formulae become the standard Newtonian ones. How do I know whether I have got anything yet? The simple answer is I'm not 100%, but I have got confidence in the idea. This confidence comes from the fact that it is able to explain things that current theories cannot. Examples of these include, why some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes, why the magnetic moment of some isotopes (e.g. nickel-59) are unknown and isotopes with the same structures have the same radioactive decay type, which all follow the same decay rate trend (e.g. the heavier the nuclei the faster the decay rate or vice versa). Furthermore, I have not found anything for which the model does not fit, and I have looked at electric flow through crystal layers, superconductivity (and how magnetic fields affect it), quantum mechanical spin, time dilation, length contraction, to name a few. As I have already stated, there is some maths in this, but it is not exhaustive.

The only way for me to answer your questions, is to let you read the work; as your questions are too expansive to answer here. Therefore, my question to you is, are you willing to read the work and find out the answers? However, I will try to give some very brief answers to your questions. Firstly you ask where GR and QT are wrong. One place where I would say QT is wrong is by considering everything as a particle, whereas I deal with everything as a wave. Secondly, you say the abstract needs to give an idea of how I have accomplished this unified theory. However, the abstracts that I have read, give you a taste of the work that is contained and the conclusions/results it gives, which is what I have done. Furthermore, I have surely given you an idea of how I have gone about producing this theory, by explaining how I have grouped the forces together one by one. Thirdly, after stating that I had not done all the maths, you ask two questions relating to maths. Now I understand that the maths will eventually need to be done, assuming the concept is right. However, from your first question, I am assuming that you are leading into the perihelion of Mercury, to which my theory is able to deal with; just as it is able to calculate the deflection angle of an em wave as it passes the Sun. Going back to your question though, my theory would be able to give the orbit of a planet, given all the correct information, like the mass of the star, etc. Also "how does gravity effect the decay rate", is not a straight forward question to answer, as time is not a unique quantity in normal terms. Therefore to start with we would need to define, how to we measure time and then what our frame of reference is. In terms of semantics, I was referring to the comment about atoms being the building blocks of the universe. Here, it comes down to your opinion of where you are going to draw the line. For example, I mentioned atoms, because chemically they cannot be broken down, others might say no, its electrons, quarks and the other QT fundamental particles that are the building blocks. One could go even further and say that the big bang is the fundamental building block of the universe, since without it, the universe would not exist. As I say, it all about where to we draw the line, in this context.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about semantics and to a certain extent it is these semantics that I am trying to learn, from a scientific point of view. In terms of atoms being the building blocks, although I understand that they consist of smaller particles, at least chemically atoms cannot be broken down. Thus from a chemical prospective they are the building blocks of everything. Maybe a better abstract of the work would be: Current theory states that there are four fundamental forces in the universe. However, we propose a qualitative model whereby all the forces can be incorporated into the electromagnetic force. Firstly, we combine the electromagnetic and gravitational forces and in doing so show now electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles. Secondly, we show how these sub-atomic particles fit and stay together, and thus incorporate the strong force. At this point our model is able to describe the nuclear structure of all the elements, including all their isotopes. Finally the weak force is incorporated and in doing so, we are able to explain why radioactivity for a single atom is a random process, as well as why on larger scales a half life can be determined. The model is also able to explain various other atomic features, for example the uncertainly principle, quantum mechanical spin, why the neutron to proton ratio required for stability increases with atomic number, why the number of stable isotopes changes between each element. Furthermore, we show how the model increases our understanding of various physically phenomena. Examples of these include, describing exactly where a unstable nuclear structure will radioactively decay, why some radioactive decay chains go through stable isotopes, what thermal energy is at a nuclear scale and how this would affect electrical conduction. Finally, we discuss several testable experiments that would be able to prove whether some of the models predictions were valid. Do you think that this abstract sounds as if the model has substance and not (as imatfall puts it) just word salad? I would also state that at this stage, although I could spend more time producing all the maths for the model, am I more interested in seeing whether the concept as a whole is correct (or at least going in the right direction). This is one of the reasons, I am more than happy to answer questions on it including pointing out mistakes in the way I am trying to put it forward and "have you considered …" questions. So please ask away. Finally, if you would like to read some of this idea, then let me know and I will upload it and send you a link.