Loading [MathJax]/jax/input/TeX/config.js
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted (edited)
  On 12/20/2017 at 3:54 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Edited by Endy0816
Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 4:58 PM, Endy0816 said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 9:24 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted (edited)
  On 12/20/2017 at 3:54 PM, Butch said:

Chadwick noted that a free neutron was extremely unstable,

Expand  

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

 

  On 12/20/2017 at 3:54 PM, Butch said:

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

Expand  

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

Edited by Sensei
Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 10:06 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:15 PM, 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.

Expand  

I am intrigued, can you elaborate?

Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 9:24 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:15 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Posted (edited)
  On 12/20/2017 at 10:25 PM, Butch said:

I am intrigued, can you elaborate?

Expand  

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 by Sensei
Posted (edited)
  On 12/20/2017 at 10:35 PM, pavelcherepan said:

Strong nuclear force.

 

Expand  

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.

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:34 PM, 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.

 

Expand  

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

Edited by Butch
Spelling
Posted (edited)
  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... I fear the momentum of qm has us jumping ahead of ourselves.

Expand  

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 by Sensei
Posted
  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... I fear the momentum of qm has us jumping ahead of ourselves.

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:34 PM, Sensei said:
Expand  

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

Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 10:45 PM, 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..

 

Expand  

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

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:49 PM, pavelcherepan said:

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

Expand  

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.).

Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 11:12 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

 

Posted
  On 12/21/2017 at 8:40 AM, 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

 

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 12/20/2017 at 11:12 PM, 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.

Expand  
!

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.

 
Posted (edited)
  On 12/21/2017 at 3:08 PM, 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.

 
Expand  

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...

  On 12/20/2017 at 10:45 PM, 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..

 

Expand  

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

Edited by Butch
Correction
Posted
  On 12/21/2017 at 3:05 PM, Butch said:

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

Expand  

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

Expand  

And that's the wrong answer.

Posted
  On 12/21/2017 at 11:29 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 12/22/2017 at 5:13 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 12/22/2017 at 6:52 PM, swansont said:

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

Expand  

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.

  On 12/21/2017 at 11:29 PM, John Cuthber said:
  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

Expand  

And that's the wrong answer.

Expand  

Really has someone measured those forces in an atom? 

 

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
×
×
  • 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.