Chadwick's experiment

[Butch]

Chadwick noted that a free neutron was extremely unstable, if this is so, should we not immediately shut down Fermi? As we will soon be running out of neutrons.

[swansont]

Shut down Fermi?

There aren't a whole lot of free neutrons out there to worry about, relative to the rest of matter.

 

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Chadwick noted that a free neutron was extremely unstable, if this is so, should we not immediately shut down Fermi? As we will soon be running out of neutrons.

There's production too. We basically have an unlimited number.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Endy0816

[Butch]

4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

There's production too. We basically have an unlimited number.

You are speaking of star stuff, ok... But the proton and electron star stuff is stable, the neutron is not. Matter in a star is in the form of ionized gas. Nuclei can be fused but what is preventing the decay of the neutron in such an environment.

[pavelcherepan]

40 minutes ago, Butch said:

Matter in a star is in the form of ionized gas. Nuclei can be fused but what is preventing the decay of the neutron in such an environment.

Ionised gas only means that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus. For as long as neutrons are bound to protons in a nucleus, they are very much stable.

[Sensei]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

Chadwick noted that a free neutron was extremely unstable,

Free neutron has half-life approximately 10 minutes, and mean-life 15 minutes. That's pretty long in the modern quantum physics standards.

 

6 hours ago, Butch said:

if this is so, should we not immediately shut down Fermi? As we will soon be running out of neutrons.

Free neutrons are made all the time from regular matter.. You can do it at home. Irene Curie got Nobel prize for this.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Sensei

[Butch]

16 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Ionised gas only means that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus. For as long as neutrons are bound to protons in a nucleus, they are very much stable.

What binds a neutral particle to a proton, I am aware of the qm explanation, although I am not expert in that arena... I don't know if I trust quark theory.

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Free neutron has half-life approximately 10 minutes, and mean-life 15 minutes. That's pretty long in the modern quantum physics standards.

 

Free neutrons are made all the time from regular matter.. You can do it at home. Irene Curie got Nobel prize for this.

I am intrigued, can you elaborate?

[Endy0816]

55 minutes ago, Butch said:

You are speaking of star stuff, ok... But the proton and electron star stuff is stable, the neutron is not. Matter in a star is in the form of ionized gas.

We normally fuse hydrogen isotopes for our neutrons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

Neutrons can be captured by atoms, stabilizing them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Free neutron has half-life approximately 10 minutes, and mean-life 15 minutes. That's pretty long in the modern quantum physics standards.

I was thinking that too. I wonder what they would make of picosecond half-lives.

[Sensei]

13 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am intrigued, can you elaborate?

It's described on Wikipedia page about Irene Curie..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irène_Joliot-Curie

 

Basically each stable isotope (and unstable too) have "missing mass-energy" (aka "binding energy"). After supplying it from external source (in Irene Curie experiment it's alpha particle with enough kinetic energy) nucleus has enough mass-energy, and can decay to smaller or bigger elements/isotopes.

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Sensei

[pavelcherepan]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

What binds a neutral particle to a proton

Strong nuclear force.

 

[Butch]

6 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Strong nuclear force.

 

Saw that coming... I don't have a lot of faith in the strong and weak nuclear forces... I fear the momentum of qm has us jumping ahead of ourselves.

9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It's described on Wikipedia page about Irene Curie..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irène_Joliot-Curie

 

Basically each stable isotope (and unstable too) have "missing mass-energy" (aka "binding energy"). After supplying it from external source (in Irene Curie experiment it's alpha particle with enough kinetic energy) nucleus has enough mass-energy, and can decay to smaller or bigger elements/isotopes.

 

She died, I don't think I want to try it at home... Lol.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[Sensei]

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

Saw that coming... I don't have a lot of faith in the strong and weak nuclear forces... I fear the momentum of qm has us jumping ahead of ourselves.

You can see particles decays, unstable isotopes decays, by your naked eyes, in Cloud Chamber.. Like this:

 

 

Strong force theory, and weak force theory, are trying to explain why they're stable, and why sometimes they're unstable.. to just explain what you can see in the above video..

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Sensei

[pavelcherepan]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Saw that coming... I don't have a lot of faith in the strong and weak nuclear forces... I fear the momentum of qm has us jumping ahead of ourselves.

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Oh yeah, this is already Speculations. I guess, you're looking for "alternative science" explanations. How about elves?

[Butch]

25 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You can see particles decays, unstable isotopes decays, by your naked eyes, in Cloud Chamber.. Like this:

 

 

Strong force theory, and weak force theory, are trying to explain why they're stable, and why sometimes they're unstable.. to just explain what you can see in the above video..

 

Yeah, did this in junior high, thanks for the input.

23 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Oh yeah, this is already Speculations. I guess, you're looking for "alternative science" explanations. How about elves?

No, I was thinking sister electrons, 2 in deuterium and 3 in tritium that take turns falling through a nucleus composed of only protons. Elves are way to big (as far as wave function goes.).

[Sensei]

19 minutes ago, Butch said:

No, I was thinking sister electrons, 2 in deuterium and 3 in tritium that take turns falling through a nucleus composed of only protons.

Electrons can be ejected from atom (ionization), or they can absorb energy and jump to higher energy level than ground state.

 

[Sensei]

9 hours ago, Butch said:

No, I was thinking sister electrons, 2 in deuterium and 3 in tritium that take turns falling through a nucleus composed of only protons.

In your model you will have problems explaining beta decay plus (aka "positron emission") in proton-rich isotopes..

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

 

[Butch]

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

In your model you will have problems explaining beta decay plus (aka "positron emission") in proton-rich isotopes..

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

 

When I get to those isotopes, perhaps... However I am currently working my way through H, He, Li and Be.

These models should produce the math which will simplify the models of heavier elements and then I shall venture into molecular structure.

I am continuing this effort because so far it fits well with the table of elements and isotopes. If I am successful there will be no need for the strong or weak forces and the neutron will not be a particle. 

If you would care to assist me, I am currently dealing with dimensions and energies in the above mentioned elements and their isotopes. Most of my information comes from the isotope browser app.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Diaea.nds.nuclides%26hl%3Den%26referrer%3Dutm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Disotope%2Bbrowser%2Bapp%26pcampaignid%3DAPPU_1_R807WrGRIYeMjwTV74q4Dg&ved=0ahUKEwjx0MOIsJvYAhUHxoMKHdW3AucQ5YQBCDQwAA&usg=AOvVaw0Pn7BFo7ezQkUFO1EfO6KV

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, Butch said:

No, I was thinking sister electrons, 2 in deuterium and 3 in tritium that take turns falling through a nucleus composed of only protons.

!

Moderator Note

This was a concept you were unable to support in another speculation that was closed. Please don't bring it up as a hijack in this thread.

 

[Butch]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This was a concept you were unable to support in another speculation that was closed. Please don't bring it up as a hijack in this thread.

 

Ok, anyway I have a problem perhaps you can help with, while the isotope browser app has complete information on charge radius, I can't seem to find a table to reference for atomic radius...

17 hours ago, Sensei said:

You can see particles decays, unstable isotopes decays, by your naked eyes, in Cloud Chamber.. Like this:

 

 

Strong force theory, and weak force theory, are trying to explain why they're stable, and why sometimes they're unstable.. to just explain what you can see in the above video..

 

I am currently attempting the same explanation, albeit at a simpler level.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Butch
Correction

[Butch]

Found a table of atomic radii of the elements

http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/AtomicRadius.v.html

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Butch said:

When I get to those isotopes, perhaps... However I am currently working my way through H, He, Li and Be.

If you have looked at the first few, and got the wrong answer, it's time to stop.

On 12/20/2017 at 10:41 PM, Butch said:

Saw that coming... I don't have a lot of faith in the strong and weak nuclear forces

And that's the wrong answer.

[Butch]

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you have looked at the first few, and got the wrong answer, it's time to stop.

And that's the wrong answer.

Not the accepted answer is not the same as the wrong answer... Unless all you can do is teach. Did you know the earth was flat.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Not the accepted answer is not the same as the wrong answer... Unless all you can do is teach. Did you know the earth was flat.

The measured answer. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. Nature has the final say on the correctness of a theory.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The measured answer. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. Nature has the final say on the correctness of a theory.

If 2 bodies have angular momentum with opposing vectors, the addition of those vectors will always produce a resultant with a lower energy than the highest energy body, deuterium agrees with experiment.

First the actual math, then on to use that math on tritium/3he.

21 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

On 12/20/2017 at 5:41 PM, Butch said:

Saw that coming... I don't have a lot of faith in the strong and weak nuclear forces

And that's the wrong answer.

Really has someone measured those forces in an atom? 

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

 deuterium agrees with experiment.

You have to make a specific prediction before you can compare it to experiment and draw this conclusion.