Theory for cause of metastable state - Establishing causality in nature again -

[pwagen]

then this case is closed for you and you can leave this threat.

Thanks for your contributions.

It's not subjective. I agree that the case is closed. But that goes for everyone, not just the ones who happen to be right.

[swansont]

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 16 Apr 2013 - 22:08, said:

It has something to do with the environment the system is in, not only with the specific state.

The hydrogen atoms are in the same environment. The two states decay at wildly different rates. You haven't explained why this can happen in your theory.

 

"something to do with the environment" is incredibly vague. What, specifically, is the interaction?

[imatfaal]

The experiment has been done. Lots of isotope powered generators have been launched into space, some of them towards and more of them away from the sun.

The effect of neutron on decay rates which this new idea predicts would have been noticed.

Not least, because space craft designers are very careful to monitor power available.

 

Since no such effect was found we can rule out this idea.

 

If someone's idea does not agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

 

 

Your post above reminded me of a story a few years ago - The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements. A press release seems a very strange way of making a claim that solar neutrinos do affect decay rates - and I never saw any follow up in the journals or in the press. Sounds like another gran sasso style experimental error - will do a bit of digging

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

The hydrogen atoms are in the same environment. The two states decay at wildly different rates. You haven't explained why this can happen in your theory.

 

"something to do with the environment" is incredibly vague. What, specifically, is the interaction?

A physical system in a metastable state remains as long as not a particular value of an arbitrary parameter is determined from outside.

 

 

If you read this again you see there is no quantitative statement. This law said only why it happens.

 

 

The interaction with the environment can be in different ways, but always giving the system the missing value of a free parameter.

 

In my experiment the free parameter was the direction of the photon in space – the interaction a hit with another atom.

Other ways are may a strong magnetic field (on the sun can be observed sudden bursts of particles and radiation in the preens of strong magnetic fields…)

Any burst of energy is “suspicious” and may indicate the ending simultaneously of many metastable states, because there can be a chain reaction, if the ending of one generates the reason to end for another one.

A delayed process is used by a laser. The direction in space seems to be the free parameter. All systems is given the same direction in space…

We are in speculations. There is a wide field for new research for many years…

One can even speculate that the big bang was the end of a large amount of metastable states. But we would still needed God, who put its finger on it, because we don’t know what ended it….

 

For water it is the exact location.... I think this is already understood. or?

Your post above reminded me of a story a few years ago - The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements. A press release seems a very strange way of making a claim that solar neutrinos do affect decay rates - and I never saw any follow up in the journals or in the press. Sounds like another gran sasso style experimental error - will do a bit of digging

The dependency of radioactive decay from the distance to the sun has been – at least in one case – observed and confirmed by another measurement.

Ask Google:

under the subtle and mysterious influence of the sun. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for this strange effect buried in the decay rate data."

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO2PDF/V08N2FAL.pdf

 

“Dependencies of radioactive decay rates on various parameters

such as temperature, pressure, electric and magnetic fields, and

molecular structures were measured [e.g., 1, 2]….”

 

That is exactly what my law says.

 

“Evidence for Correlations between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance”, Jere H. Jenkins, Ephriam Fischbach, Hohn B. Buncher, John T. Gruenwald, Dennis Krause, and Joshua J. Mattes, arXiv preprint 0808.3283v1 [astro-ph], August 25, 2008.

“Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates During the Solar Flare of 13 December 2006”, Jere H. Jenkins and Ephriam Fischbach, arXiv preprint 0808.3156 [astro-ph], August 22, 2008.

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Edited April 17, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[swansont]

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 17 Apr 2013 - 08:04, said:

A physical system in a metastable state remains as long as not a particular value of an arbitrary parameter is determined from outside.

 

 

If you read this again you see there is no quantitative statement. This law said only why it happens.

 

 

The interaction with the environment can be in different ways, but always giving the system the missing value of a free parameter.

And I'm asking how it can be that with two two hydrogen atoms in the same environment, one experiences this missing value of a free parameter while the other doesn't.

 

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 17 Apr 2013 - 08:04, said:

In my experiment the free parameter was the direction of the photon in space – the interaction a hit with another atom.

A collision changes the spontaneous reaction into an induced one, an effect that is not a surprise to anyone else. Non-metastable atomic states readily decay without collisions. Why?

[John Cuthber]

A physical system in a metastable state remains as long as not a particular value of an arbitrary parameter is determined from outside.

 

 

If you read this again you see there is no quantitative statement. This law said only why it happens.

In which case it is clearly inferior to the accepted theory which does permit quantitative predictions of the lifetimes of excited states.

Though, as you already accepted, the case is closed.

[krash661]

this is the thought,

" I was the first succesful physicist generating the first trace of a single alpha particle " ?

 

and no i can not find any info on it

and i do not know where this conversation started.

 

edit-

 

I'm looking for what is being discussed and what the journals rejected.

 

Theory for cause of metastable state

 

ohh, this is what you are talking about...

 

 

 

I now understand.

Edited April 19, 2013 by krash661

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

this is the thought,

" I was the first succesful physicist generating the first trace of a single alpha particle " ?

 

and no i can not find any info on it

and i do not know where this conversation started.

In my website is on the first line the button

Theory for cause of metastable state

- Establishing causality in nature again -

 

The same theme started in "speculations"

 

I hoped to find fighter for new ideas, but I am mainly confronted with suppressors of new ideas only.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[krash661]

just so i understand,

 

you are saying that

 

a low energy collision of a nucleus in a nucleas shows a alpha particle and this particle is what creates the reason and time for the photon to emit radiation ( light) ?

 

edit-

 

or is your thought on the,

 

metastable state ?

Edited April 19, 2013 by krash661

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

just so i understand,

 

you are saying that

 

a low energy collision of a nucleus in a nucleas shows a alpha particle and this particle is what creates the reason and time for the photon to emit radiation ( light) ?

 

edit-

 

or is your thought on the,

 

metastable state ?

I said only:

Ein physikalisches System verharrt solange in einem metastabilen Zustand solange nicht ein bestimmter Wert eines frei wählbaren Parameters von außen vorgegeben wird.

A physical system in a metastable state remains as long as not a particular value of an arbitrary parameter is determined from outside.

 

I explained why my experements 1966 support this claim.

I tried to publish it now, because there are now observations supporting my claim.

Links in my last postings...

[krash661]

 

The big question is: Why are the electrons not able to emit light right away?

A possible answer: they have an entirely free parameter, the direction of emitting light and they are not able to decide by itself in what direction they should emit. They have not a free will, as Einstein said.

so in other words you are saying that this is a external reacted phenomenon rather than an internal

and will stay in a metastable state until such occurs,then once occurred it emits radiation with more reaction than usual??

Edited April 19, 2013 by krash661

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

so in other words you are saying that this is a external reacted phenomenon rather than an internal

and will stay in a metastable state until such occurs,then once occurred it emits radiation with more reaction than usual??

yes, except with the word "more".

This comes only in play if there is a chain reaction (laser, gamma bursts etc) between many systems as I explained above.

Mostly the free parameter is a point/direction in time and space...

It is consistent with other observations. Think yourself of one.

For instance in mechanic: you can nothing (in dead nature) move, if you give it not a direction. If you would be able to give it energy for moving without any direction, it would not move, because it don't know in what direction.

But what happens in an atom? An electron may get more energy than it needed without simultaniously getting a direction and want emit a photon, but don’t know in which direction if there is nothing out there in a certain direction. The atom itself is total rotational symmetrically.

If somebody can move an object without giving any direction, he would render my theory false.

In the last 50 years nobody succeeded.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[krash661]

interesting.

ok I'll read this whole thread so i fully understand this.

[Klaynos]

Still claiming that observations agree with predictions with no maths I see. Modern physics requires precise comparison to make such statements, maths is required for that. That is why I gave up posting in this thread. Thought I should mention it again for anyone who gets this far.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

interesting.

 

ok I'll read this whole thread so i fully understand this.

that is what I like.

Others read nothing, but object everything.

[krash661]

Still claiming that observations agree with predictions with no maths I see. Modern physics requires precise comparison to make such statements, maths is required for that. That is why I gave up posting in this thread. Thought I should mention it again for anyone who gets this far.

great point.

[swansont]

 

The dependency of radioactive decay from the distance to the sun has been – at least in one case – observed and confirmed by another measurement.

Ask Google:

under the subtle and mysterious influence of the sun. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for this strange effect buried in the decay rate data."

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO2PDF/V08N2FAL.pdf

 

“Dependencies of radioactive decay rates on various parameters

such as temperature, pressure, electric and magnetic fields, and

molecular structures were measured [e.g., 1, 2]….”

 

That is exactly what my law says.

 

 

 

Excerpt that the very next part says

Those measurements reveal most often only very small dependencies, and it is doubtful whether they really challenge the supposed principle of genuinely probabilistic phenomena, since they possibly can be explained in terms of more or less small variations of the quantum-mechanic tunnelling parameters.

 

IOW, the underlying phenomenon is not induced by these parameters.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Excerpt that the very next part says

 

IOW, the underlying phenomenon is not induced by these parameters.

You copied only what fits in your combat strategy against me like a real prosecutor, but there is written also:

“…I consider the hypothesis that b-decay is caused by neutrinos, although not really proven beyond doubt, a realistic possibility, realistic enough to justify further research about it.”

How can this be –Mister behind the gun – that this physicist agrees with me 100%?

 

That is the difference between real working physicists in the field of research and the Admins in this forum; the first ones want go on with the research - the admins here want shut down everything, because my theory is “mumbo jumbo” in their personnel tailored “reality”.

 

I just see also that he made exactly the same proposal as I:

“…The best option would of course be to perform an

experiment of this sort on board of a space ship travelling further

away from or closer to the sun than the earth does.”

 

Since this admin denies the results of observations there the article:

 

Article removed due to copyright infringement.

 

Still claiming that observations agree with predictions with no maths I see. Modern physics requires precise comparison to make such statements, maths is required for that. That is why I gave up posting in this thread. Thought I should mention it again for anyone who gets this far.

there!

another attempt to block this discussion. I will report this

We are in speculations, but he demands a complete house, where he can rest in.

Mr. Klaynos, here is an idea, what eventually could grow and have fruits with math, but only if it is not killed before.

You will be much more happy in threats with math.

By the way: I am not a theoretical physicist. I am an experimental physicist and made 1966 the first traces of alpha particles in a new spark chamber and further I investigated the interaction of metastabil atoms with other atoms and found that a metastable state get ended by a hit by another atom. I waited almost a half century for theoretic physicists to make a theory of it, but what happens? – absolute nothing.

Now – on the end of my live (I have 2 cancers and my days are counted) I read that there are new observation which seems to prove my claim.

Therefore, I tried to publish it. After this failed I put it in for a. My only intention was it should not be lost for mankind, with it some physicist after me can go on with it.

I hoped even to find help here – my mistake.

But instead helping me to develop my hypotheses further I am treated in the same way as in a political jail – I am the defendant and some here play the prosecutor.

I also was going to post other ideas, but Admins convinced me otherwise: it is better to take them with me in my grave.

That is what will happen.

Admin: Dein Wille geschehe.

Therefore, it is total irrelevant if admins gave me points, warnings and let me drown in their piss, as me was told.

Edited April 20, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine
removed article

[Klaynos]

 

 

Still claiming that observations agree with predictions with no maths I see. Modern physics requires precise comparison to make such statements, maths is required for that. That is why I gave up posting in this thread. Thought I should mention it again for anyone who gets this far.

there!

another attempt to block this discussion. I will report this

We are in speculations, but he demands a complete house, where he can rest in.

You are making big claims, in modem physics such claims require maths, sorry, that's the way it is. You either need to retract such definitive claims or realise you are not doing science bit telling stories.

 

 

Mr. Klaynos, here is an idea, what eventually could grow and have fruits with math, but only if it is not killed before.

It's not Mr, thanks, Please don't be condescending. Your claims are more than you imply here though, you claim the evidence support it, without maths all it can do is not contradict it outright, words are too vague for science.

 

 

You will be much more happy in threats with math.

There was no threat, stop making stuff up, it doesn't look good.

 

 

By the way: I am not a theoretical physicist. I am an experimental physicist

I'm sorry but I don't see why being an experimentalist would mean you didn't use maths every experimental physicist know, input anyone I know of, uses maths.

 

and made 1966 the first traces of alpha particles in a new spark chamber and further I investigated the interaction of metastabil atoms with other atoms and found that a metastable state get ended by a hit by another atom. I waited almost a half century for theoretic physicists to make a theory of it, but what happens? – absolute nothing.

Now – on the end of my live (I have 2 cancers and my days are counted) I read that there are new observation which seems to prove my claim.

You still need maths to make this claim, sorry.

 

 

Therefore, I tried to publish it. After this failed I put it in for a. My only intention was it should not be lost for mankind, with it some physicist after me can go on with it.

I hoped even to find help here – my mistake.

But instead helping me to develop my hypotheses further I am treated in the same way as in a political jail – I am the defendant and some here play the prosecutor.

You do not talk like severe who has hied in a repressive regime as you said you did, you seem to trivialise political prison,we have not in any way Limited your freedoms, you for one they have no night to post here, it is a privately owned entity. Even if you are banned, your right we not been limited Your may still go out into the street and shout about your ideas.

 

 

I also was going to post other ideas, but Admins convinced me otherwise: it is better to take them with me in my grave.

That is what will happen.

Admin: Dein Wille geschehe.

Therefore, it is total irrelevant if admins gave me points, warnings and let me drown in their piss, as me was told.

 

You need to separate your ideas from your self worth and stop reading so much into the comments people make...

[swansont]

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 19 Apr 2013 - 23:20, said:

You copied only what fits in your combat strategy against me like a real prosecutor, but there is written also:

“…I consider the hypothesis that b-decay is caused by neutrinos, although not really proven beyond doubt, a realistic possibility, realistic enough to justify further research about it.”

How can this be –Mister behind the gun – that this physicist agrees with me 100%?

You say it's proven and will brook no contradiction, as this thread attests. He says "not really proven beyond doubt" and says let's do more research. That's not 100% agreement. He also says that it's doubtful that decays are not probabilistic, and you are certain it's not. That's not 100% agreement. That's close to 0% agreement.

 

I don't have to look for things that agree with you. A theory that's only partly right, or right only part of the time is wrong and needs to be fixed or discarded. You can't focus on what agrees with your theory, you have to look for what doesn't. If you don't you end up with crappy science, which is exactly what you're peddling.

Wolfhart Willimczik, on 19 Apr 2013 - 23:20, said:

That is the difference between real working physicists in the field of research and the Admins in this forum; the first ones want go on with the research - the admins here want shut down everything, because my theory is “mumbo jumbo” in their personnel tailored “reality”.

Keep telling yourself that. Can't be letting any reality disrupt your worldview.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Wolfhart,

 

Please be more mindful of copyright laws when you copy paste things. I have removed the text you copied as it was far too much and goes beyond what would be considered fair use.