Subatomic particles (split from are all comprised of waves)

[madmac]

Bender. swansont.

Thanks for the link & comments. I need to read more on sub-atomic stuff (QM). Naturally i will be keeping a good eye out for anything that supports my existing beliefs, namely --- quanta = ok -- antiparticles = ok -- 3 types of quark or whatever = ok -- about half of our present 60 or so particles = not ok.

 

Without wishing to start any off-topic discussion, i might add (just to show my state of mind) that i suspect that all particles have mass (& no other type of particle exists). And that photons are the smallest elementary particle (& have mass). And there are no neutrinos. That there is a sub-quantum aether (giving our field). That we have no waves as such (perhaps sub-quantum waves of some sort).

[swansont]

 

Without wishing to start any off-topic discussion, i might add (just to show my state of mind) that i suspect that all particles have mass (& no other type of particle exists). And that photons are the smallest elementary particle (& have mass). And there are no neutrinos. That there is a sub-quantum aether (giving our field). That we have no waves as such (perhaps sub-quantum waves of some sort).

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You did add, so this was split

 

No neutrinos? OK, how are energy, momentum and angular momentum conserved in beta decay?

 

Photons have mass? How do they travel at c? Why does the travel speed not depend on the energy? How does physics work if photons have mass (many things in mainstream physics would break)? What is your experimental evidence to support the notion?

[Sensei]

Without wishing to start any off-topic discussion, i might add (just to show my state of mind) that i suspect that all particles have mass (& no other type of particle exists). And that photons are the smallest elementary particle (& have mass).

While saying about 'mass' you should specify which 'mass' you have in mind.

There are rest-mass and relativistic-mass.

Swansont is using "mass" as shortcut to "rest-mass".

 

And there are no neutrinos.

 

Neutrinos are detectable in f.e. Chlorine-based neutrino detector.

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

 

Reaction is like:

 

[math]^{37}_{17}Cl + v_e + 0.814 MeV \rightarrow ^{37}_{18}Ar + e^-[/math]

 

Neutrino is captured, and neutron undergoes decay to proton and electron.

And scientists are able to measure newly produced Argon (that was not there prior accident).

or wait for Ar-37 decay back to Cl-37.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Sensei

[madmac]

swansont.

Re no neutrinos. Buechner & van de Graaff in 1946 did a calorimetric test showing that there was no energy deficit needing neutrinos.

Re conservation, i did see some sort of article way back that said something about angular momentum not being scalar.

 

Re photons having mass, we know that they travel at c, hencely perhaps if they had little mass or zero mass they would travel at more than c (but it would still be c)(See????). This is a sort of circular argument.

 

Another thing. If photons have zero mass then how can E=mc^2. If all of a lump of mass was converted to energy, where would the energy go? How would it go? There is no such thing as energy. The only place that energy could go is into kinetic energy of photons. And if photons have no mass then how could they have kinetic energy. Thusly E=mc^2 is silly. Some of the mass must always be retained in the form of new photons (which have mass), & the lost mass would then manifest as the extra kinetic energy of them photons. Thusly E=mc^2 must have a coefficient (a fraction) that defines the maximum possible loss of mass, which would differ for different reactions (ie the coefficient would not be a constant). The failure of standard physics here starts with the notion that there are waves, & that waves have energy, & that energy = mass. No, there is no such thing as wave.

 

Offhand i don't know of experiments proving that photons have mass. But conversely (almost conversely) i don't know of any that show that a loss of mass gives energy.

Sensei.

I believe that mass is mass. Mass doesn't change with speed (that's only a math trick). Rest mass & relativistic mass are not real, just a (good) math trick.

Re photons, i believe that these are the fundamental (smallest) particle, & have mass. Other (larger & more massive) sub-atomic particles are made up of one or more confined photons. A free photon has a very very small mass, it could almost be called a quasi-particle. Confinement (an electron is a confined photon) somehow adds lots of mass. J G Williamson describes how confinement can make 3 types of quark, & other particles.

 

There are lots of google articles out there that analyse & criticise supposed neutrino detectors, i have 7 (Carezani is one, Hilster is another).

Edited February 2, 2017 by madmac

[swansont]

swansont.

Re no neutrinos. Buechner & van de Graaff in 1946 did a calorimetric test showing that there was no energy deficit needing neutrinos.

Reference? It's possible that such a test was too crude to find the problem. The beta energy spectrum is a continuum, which can't happen without a third particle unless you throw out conservation laws.

 

edit: OK, I found the paper. They weren't looking at beta decay, they were looking at electron scattering. It's not clear why you would cite this, since there's no expectation that neutrinos would be involved. (Back then, of course, they were not quite sure what was going on.)

 

Re conservation, i did see some sort of article way back that said something about angular momentum not being scalar.

 

No, it's not a scalar. That doesn't solve this problem.

 

You're not going to be able to tear down basic physics with such weak arguments and no supporting evidence.

 

Re photons having mass, we know that they travel at c, hencely perhaps if they had little mass or zero mass they would travel at more than c (but it would still be c)(See????). This is a sort of circular argument.

If photons had mass we would see e.g. dispersion effects, as high-energy photons would travel at different speeds than low-energy photons. But we don't see this.

 

 

Another thing. If photons have zero mass then how can E=mc^2. If all of a lump of mass was converted to energy, where would the energy go?

Into massless particles. We already observe this with the two photons created in pair annihilation.

 

How would it go? There is no such thing as energy. The only place that energy could go is into kinetic energy of photons.

Bingo!

 

And if photons have no mass then how could they have kinetic energy.

Why is this a problem?

 

Thusly E=mc^2 is silly. Some of the mass must always be retained i

Offhand i don't know of experiments proving that photons have mass. But conversely (almost conversely) i don't know of any that show that a loss of mass gives energy.

I do.

 

People found Fe-65 had a different mass if the nucleus had absorbed a photon (was in an excited state) as compared to releasing a photon (ground state), in accordance with E=mc^2.

 

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

 

Sensei.

I believe that mass is mass. Mass doesn't change with speed (that's only a math trick). Rest mass & relativistic mass are not real, just a (good) math trick.

Re photons, i believe that these are the fundamental (smallest) particle, & have mass. Other (larger & more massive) sub-atomic particles are made up of one or more confined photons. A free photon has a very very small mass, it could almost be called a quasi-particle. Confinement (an electron is a confined photon) somehow adds lots of mass. J G Williamson describes how confinement can make 3 types of quark, & other particles.

 

There are lots of google articles out there that analyse & criticise supposed neutrino detectors, i have 7 (Carezani is one, Hilster is another).

What you believe is immaterial. It's what you can show, via models and experiments.

 

What have you got?

[Sensei]

Another thing. If photons have zero mass then how can E=mc^2. If all of a lump of mass was converted to energy, where would the energy go? How would it go? There is no such thing as energy. The only place that energy could go is into kinetic energy of photons. And if photons have no mass then how could they have kinetic energy. Thusly E=mc^2 is silly. Some of the mass must always be retained in the form of new photons (which have mass), & the lost mass would then manifest as the extra kinetic energy of them photons. Thusly E=mc^2 must have a coefficient (a fraction) that defines the maximum possible loss of mass, which would differ for different reactions (ie the coefficient would not be a constant). The failure of standard physics here starts with the notion that there are waves, & that waves have energy, & that energy = mass. No, there is no such thing as wave.

 

Offhand i don't know of experiments proving that photons have mass. But conversely (almost conversely) i don't know of any that show that a loss of mass gives energy.

I will give you example where conservation of mass-energy is the easiest visible, and easily to be calculated, and measured in experiment.

 

Suppose so you have unstable isotope of element which is decaying by gamma decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

 

Prior decay we measure mass of particle, and see rest-mass m₀,

then after decay we detect gamma ray with energy E=h*f,

and 2nd product isotope with mass m₁, which is smaller than m₀.

The same quantity of protons and neutrons either prior decay and after decay. They are called nuclear isomers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer

 

Mass:

[math]m_0 = m_1\gamma +\frac{h f}{c^2}[/math]

 

Energy:

[math]m_0 c^2 = m_1 c^2 \gamma +h f[/math]

 

[math]\gamma[/math] is very very close to 1.0, so typically is omitted.

 

Giving you equation:

 

[math]h f = m_0 c^2 - m_1 c^2[/math]

Edited February 3, 2017 by Sensei

[madmac]

Sensei.

I don't think i have heard of that before, same number of nucleons but less mass, very interesting.

I am especially weak re sub-atomic stuff, so the less i say the better, i don't want to risk embarrassing myself & wasting everyone's time.

But, i know just enough to allow me to have a belief or two, & i think i read something last month that might shed some light on this.

 

I will find that article & report back. But in the meantime i am not surprised that mass is less after emission of a gamma, because gammas are particles (photons), & have mass (real mass, not just equivalent mass or something). I know so little that i don't even know whether this sort of thinking is mainstream.

 

So, the enigma for me changes, it becomes a question of how can a nucleon lose a photon yet not change form(?). What energy created the not-needed photon(?). Thanks for the wiki-link, i did read it, & if it answered my new question then this proves how silly i am. But i will find that article (i must have a thousand articles in my computer) & report back (re non-proof of mass=energy). It was a sort of Arab name, or Eurasian.

[Sensei]

Sensei.

I don't think i have heard of that before, same number of nucleons but less mass, very interesting.

I am especially weak re sub-atomic stuff, so the less i say the better, i don't want to risk embarrassing myself & wasting everyone's time.

That's good.

Because Technetium-99m isomer is widely used around the world...

You might spend some more time reading how radio-isomers are used in practice here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m

 

But, i know just enough to allow me to have a belief or two,

Leave 'belief' for the Sunday mass..

 

Here you don't need realtors. You have the first hand data..

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sensei

[madmac]

Sensei.

Yes belief as a word gets some bad press in science circles, supposedly inferring lack of proof. But there is no such thing as absolute proof. Putting it another way, even if something is proven u still need faith in the proof. Oops, i think i did it again. But, there is no better word.

 

Ezzat G Bakhoum has written at least 2 nice articles re lack of proof of E=mc^2.

 

Why E=mc^2 Emerges in the Process of Neutron Capture (2007).

This comments on Rainville's article in 2005 Nature, Bakhoum says that they only proved that delta m = delta kinetic energy.

 

Fundamental Disagreement of Wave Mechanics with Relativity (2002).

This explains why there is no energy shortfall in Beta decay, thusly neutrinos are not needed (here at least).

 

Me, i don't believe that E=mc^2. I don't see how Lorentz length dilation can be legitimately used to arrive at it.

However, if ever someone came up with a theory re change of mass with speed i would be happy to give it a good hearing.

But it best have a good mechanical reason.

And such a theory would almost certainly describe a loss of mass with speed (not a gain), real mass (not pseudo mass).

And based on real speed, not some pseudo speed based on some arbitrary at-rest system. Real speed here being absolute speed (relative to the aether).

Edited February 4, 2017 by madmac