 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2006Neutrino caused beta decay
Hi The beta decay process is described as neutron -> proton + antielectronneutrino + electron (1) However this process is also possible neutron + electronneutrino -> proton + electron (2) I find the latter more likely to occur due to four reasons. 1. The decay would be caused instead of spontaneous. It is better to have a reason for something than to say it occurs by some probability. (2) is a reaction formula whereas (1) is not. 2. The kinetic energy distribution of the neutrino is more natural in reaction (2). It would be similar to the distribution for the outgoing electron instead of U shaped as in decay process (1). The experimentally determined energy distribution for the outgoing electron is http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/eq3.gif 3. We are surrounded by neutrinos, 100/cm³ or 3*10^16/m²s. 4. There are observations that the beta decay is altered with a periodicity of 24 hours, 27 days and one year. See Realization of discrete states during fluctuations in macroscopic processes by S E Shnoll et al http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=463&year_id=1998&v olume=41&issue_id=10&fpage=1025&lpage=1035 This implies that the cosmic neutrino distribution varies when the earth and sun are in different positions. The periods agrees with the daily earth shielding of of the neutrino flow from the sun. The sun might have anisotropically neutrino outflow which would support the periodicity of 27 days which corresponds to the sun rotation. The one year periodicity could be explained by the sun shielding parts of the cosmic background or that the earth experiences outflow from the sun at various latitudes. This investigation indicates an anisotropic distribution of the neutrino flux Experimental Investigations of Changes in ß-Decay Rate of 60Co and 137Cs by Baurov et al http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/16/1632/S0217732301005187.html I would be happy to find more articles supporting reaction (2). Info on neutrino flux around earth and its kinetic distribution is also welcome. David On 8-Dec-2005, "David Jonsson" <david@djk.se> wrote in message <1134079531.805497.271760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>: > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have a reason for something than to say it occurs by some probability. > (2) is a reaction formula whereas (1) is not. In other words, you don't understand Quantum Field Theory. Bzzt. [...]  SignatureJim Heckman On 8-Dec-2005, "Jim Heckman" <wnzrfeurpxzna@lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote in message <11phv3v1tf3e483@corp.supernews.com>: > On 8-Dec-2005, "David Jonsson" <david@djk.se> > wrote in message <1134079531.805497.271760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > However this process is also possible > > neutron + electronneutrino -> proton + electron (2) This does indeed occur. But it's easy to distinguish from (1) by the observed energy spectra of the proton and electron: E_p + E_e < M_n for (1), > M_n for (2). (M_n = rest mass of neutron.) > > I find the latter more likely to occur due to four reasons. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > [...] SignatureJim Heckman I don't see the difference between saying something is random and saying it might have unknow causes. Causes can not be excluded. The two cited papers does only show a beta decay variation. They do not suggest neutrino variations to cause them. I referred to them only to show that there is a variation in beta decay rates and thus not any a priori randomness in this process. Thanks for suggesting n + e+ + e- ---> p + nubar_e + e- (3) Are there even more possibilities? (3) is also a caused reaction and the e+ e- pair could have been caused by a gamma photon. A limited range of e+ energies would then be accepted by the neutron. This range is probably know. Bu thigh energy gammas are rare. I will look into this next year. I know there is electromagnetic radioation involved as well due to the acceleration of the emitted electron. What gamma did I miss? Is neutrino density to low to allow reaction (2)? I have not been informed about what quantum field theory says. David | I don't see the difference between saying something is random and | saying it might have unknow causes. Causes can not be excluded. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | n + e+ + e- ---> p + nubar_e + e- (3) | Are there even more possibilities? Probably but the probability of others occuring are extremely low since the excess energy of the neutron over the proton is just a little bit higher than 2*m_e*c^2. | (3) is also a caused reaction and the e+ e- pair could have been caused | by a gamma photon. A limited range of e+ energies would then be | accepted by the neutron. This range is probably know. Bu thigh energy | gammas are rare. I will look into this next year. This is probably conjecture on my part, but I was thinking more that the excess energy of the neutron over the proton "catalyzes" the e+e- pair production. Taking the quantum "vacuum" as a medium makes it easier to realize this but very hard to show in a proper Feynman diagram. ;-) | I know there is electromagnetic radioation involved as well due to the | acceleration of the emitted electron. | | What gamma did I miss? None that I know of. The extra energy in (2) comes from the neutrino. | Is neutrino density to low to allow reaction (2)? No, but the probability of it occuring is very low. As with (3) also. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | What gamma did I miss? > > None that I know of. The extra energy in (2) comes from the neutrino. It ends in a gamma. | > | What gamma did I miss? | > | > None that I know of. The extra energy in (2) comes from the neutrino. | | It ends in a gamma. Ya got a reference for that? FrediFizzx > | > | What gamma did I miss? > | > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ya got a reference for that? Ya, it's callen "addition". Or one can substitute other neutral particles for the gamma. -Aut the neutrino cannot be a cause of beta decay it can be only a *result* of it becuae all the main partners there are bigger in mass.(and energy) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > The beta decay process is described as > neutron -> proton + antielectronneutrino + electron (1) > > However this process is also possible > neutron + electronneutrino -> proton + electron (2) You forgot the gamma. > I find the latter more likely to occur due to four reasons. > > 1. The decay would be caused instead of spontaneous. It is better to > have a reason for something than to say it occurs by some probability. > (2) is a reaction formula whereas (1) is not. Does a snapping and unfurling spring not have a wherefore for a'happening? > 2. The kinetic energy distribution of the neutrino is more natural in > reaction (2). It would be similar to the distribution for the outgoing > electron instead of U shaped as in decay process (1). > The experimentally determined energy distribution for the outgoing > electron is > http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/eq3.gif coincidence, neutrinos a'being lihter than electrons > 3. We are surrounded by neutrinos, 100/cm³ or 3*10^16/m²s. So radioactive neutrons are to be neutrino-magnets now, outside the weak range? > 4. There are observations that the beta decay is altered with a > periodicity of 24 hours, 27 days and one year. See > Realization of discrete states during fluctuations in > macroscopic processes > by S E Shnoll et al > http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=463&year_id=1998&v olume=41&issue_id=10&fpage=1025&lpage=1035 too short and too long > This implies that the cosmic neutrino distribution varies when the > earth and sun are in different positions. The periods agrees with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cosmic background or that the earth experiences outflow from the sun at > various latitudes. How about solar and cosmic rays that aren't neutrinos instead? > This investigation indicates an anisotropic distribution of the > neutrino flux > Experimental Investigations of Changes in ß-Decay Rate of 60Co > and 137Cs > by Baurov et al > http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/16/1632/S0217732301005187.html neutrino flux? says where? > I would be happy to find more articles supporting reaction (2). Info on > neutrino flux around earth and its kinetic distribution is also > welcome. Don't forget about missing energy. -Aut > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have a reason for something than to say it occurs by some probability. > (2) is a reaction formula whereas (1) is not. Three comments: 1. The rate at which (2) occurs is the same fundamental rate that (1) occurs, and both are governed by the same coupling strength. 2. You are mistaken if you think (2) happens in a deterministic way, and (1) does not. In particular, (2) does NOT happen on every "collision" of a neutron and a neutrino, and the fraction that do (see my comment 1) are no more predictable than the occurrence of (1). 3. Determinism may be more appealing in terms of our common experience, but at the microscopic level it is an inescapable fact that the norm is random, not deterministic. Failure to accept that is, unfortunately, simply a failure to accept nature for what it really is. > 2. The kinetic energy distribution of the neutrino is more natural in > reaction (2). It would be similar to the distribution for the outgoing > electron instead of U shaped as in decay process (1). I don't know what your criteria are for "more natural". Both distributions are consistent with conservation of energy and momentum and that's all that's really required. > The experimentally determined energy distribution for the outgoing > electron is > http://ewiserver.npl.washington.edu/sno/eq3.gif > > 3. We are surrounded by neutrinos, 100/cm³ or 3*10^16/m²s. Yes, and where do you suppose those come from? > 4. There are observations that the beta decay is altered with a > periodicity of 24 hours, 27 days and one year. See [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cosmic background or that the earth experiences outflow from the sun at > various latitudes. I can't determine from the abstract what this paper has to do with *beta decay*. The variation in the flux of solar neutrinos on the earth is well documented and in fact is related to the measurement of neutrino oscillation, but I don't know how that relates to beta decay. > This investigation indicates an anisotropic distribution of the > neutrino flux [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > David > > Hi > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1. The rate at which (2) occurs is the same fundamental rate that (1) > occurs, and both are governed by the same coupling strength. cite > 3. Determinism may be more appealing in terms of our common experience, > but at the microscopic level it is an inescapable fact that the norm is > random, not deterministic. Failure to accept that is, unfortunately, > simply a failure to accept nature for what it really is. Prove it. > > > Hi > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Prove it. The proof is in experimental behavior. Read about it. PD > > > > Hi > > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > PD A good starting point for reading references is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments PD Stop cascading, you uncouth dumbass. > > The proof is in experimental behavior. Read about it. > A good starting point for reading references is at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments The Bell tests are as worthles as the witch trials of the Dark Ages. Isolates and blackbodies are like unicorns. Hidden variables or quantum stochastics are not a yes/no test. -Aut > Stop cascading, you uncouth dumbass. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Isolates and blackbodies are like unicorns. Hidden variables or > quantum stochastics are not a yes/no test. Convenience approach to science: Come up with a statement. Check with experiment. If experiment doesn't match statement, experiment is crap. PD > Convenience approach to science: Come up with a statement. Check with > experiment. If experiment doesn't match statement, experiment is crap. If either experiment or statement is ambiguous, either is junk. See the loopholes from the article. > > Convenience approach to science: Come up with a statement. Check with > > experiment. If experiment doesn't match statement, experiment is crap. > > If either experiment or statement is ambiguous, either is junk. See > the loopholes from the article. loopholes? cite. > > > Convenience approach to science: Come up with a statement. Check with > > > experiment. If experiment doesn't match statement, experiment is crap. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > loopholes? cite. Now that's proof that you're too dazen to follow directions. Look in the article! >Probably but the probability of others occurring are extremely low since >the excess energy of the neutron over the proton is just a little bit >higher than 2*m_e*c^2. The actual nucleus before and after the reaction and their binding energy has to be considered, not only the proton and the neutron and their mass differences. It is also wrong to see the neutrino and the nucleus as particles with a fixed radius. The so called cross sections can vary a lot and is determined by something else. Compare with for example the cross section for moderator of neutrons. Hydrogen has a zero cross section whereas 113 Cadmium has 55 000 barns, 10 000 times it's "geometrical" cross section. For 1 MeV solar neutrinos (ve) the cross section for the following reaction ve + n -> e- + p is 10^-18 barns. What happens if this is calculated for specific beta decay nuclei instead? The sources of the neutrinos in neutrino caused beta decay can be of other origin than the sun or earth. The periodicity of 1 day, 28-30 days and 1 year can then be explained as the sun, moon and earth screening different parts of the sky and the cosmic neutrinos origination from there. That could explain the uncertainty in the periodicity around 1 month (solar rotation period and moons rotation period being slightly different). A suggestion is to put one or several beta decay sources at the equator and the poles and look for differences. David A small correction regarding cross sections. I mean helium, not hydrogen, having zero cross section. More specifically I mean 4 He. David > It is also wrong to see the neutrino and the nucleus as particles with > a fixed radius. The so called cross sections can vary a lot and is > determined by something else. fixate standard radius > Compare with for example the cross section for moderator of neutrons. > Hydrogen has a zero cross section whereas 113 Cadmium has 55 000 barns, > 10 000 times it's "geometrical" cross section. its, not it's! As you corrected this with He-4, even this shouldn't have a "zero" cross-section, as the neutron is a composite particle and can be polarised by the helion. A He-5 exists too. The size of a particle is dependent on another particle, duh. > For 1 MeV solar neutrinos (ve) the cross section for the following > reaction > ve + n -> e- + p No, n_e + N -> f + e- + P. > is 10^-18 barns. What happens if this is calculated for specific beta > decay nuclei instead? It win't be 1 cm^2. > The sources of the neutrinos in neutrino caused beta decay can be of > other origin than the sun or earth. The periodicity of 1 day, 28-30 > days and 1 year can then be explained as the sun, moon and earth > screening different parts of the sky and the cosmic neutrinos > origination from there. That could explain the uncertainty in the > periodicity around 1 month (solar rotation period and moons rotation moon's > period being slightly different). So where do you explain how it's neutrinos and not electrons or protons? -Aut > It is also wrong to see the neutrino and the nucleus as particles with > a fixed radius. The so called cross sections can vary a lot and is > determined by something else. a fixate standard radius > Compare with for example the cross section for moderator of neutrons. > Hydrogen has a zero cross section whereas 113 Cadmium has 55 000 barns, > 10 000 times it's "geometrical" cross section. its, not it's! As you corrected this with He-4, even this shouldn't have a "zero" cross-section, as the neutron is a composite particle and can be polarised by the helion. A He-5 exists too. The size of a particle is dependent on another particle, duh. > For 1 MeV solar neutrinos (ve) the cross section for the following > reaction > ve + n -> e- + p No, n_e + N -> f + e- + P. f is the field operator that includes axions (don't know what else neutrinos make.), partial fotons, and partial gluons. > is 10^-18 barns. What happens if this is calculated for specific beta > decay nuclei instead? It win't be 1 cm^2. > The sources of the neutrinos in neutrino caused beta decay can be of > other origin than the sun or earth. The periodicity of 1 day, 28-30 > days and 1 year can then be explained as the sun, moon and earth > screening different parts of the sky and the cosmic neutrinos > origination from there. That could explain the uncertainty in the > periodicity around 1 month (solar rotation period and moons rotation moon's > period being slightly different). So where do you explain how it's neutrinos and not electrons or protons? -Aut O, and gravitons! Baurov et al miss that changing projections of the cosmic vector potential due to rotation of the earth would be sinusoidal. The actual measurements are more of a shape of immediate increase and gradual decline. I wonder what kind of waves would produce this shape. If neutrinos are the cause of this then they have a sharp shock front. Could anyone involved with wave theory please tell me what conditions causes this wave type? Another way of determining between a vector potential is to see if there is any time difference between the occurrences of the variations at different locations and how big those differences are. Big economic and environmental interest is involved in this issue. If it becomes evident that beta decay is caused by varying factors instead of spontaneous by constant factors then there is hope that we can work away they enormous big pile of nuclear waste consisting to high degree of long lived beta decay isotopes. Billions of euros are spent annually on nuclear waste management. Seek financing from that sector to lower the half life of radiators like Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60. Billions could be made in savings. Someone has probably understood the international and national agreements on nuclear non proliferation in such a way that they think it is right to stop information about nuclear technologies by letting us live on with incomplete information. This is likely to have occurred in this case. I can not see that it is a breach against those treatises to find the correct process and spread this information. This is not a pure scientific issue. Nuclear activity is limited by extensive legislation. The means to find ways to work with Baurov's findings requires business development. David > Could anyone involved with wave theory please tell me what conditions > causes this wave type? I made some progress here. There is a periodicity of 4 days on page 2099 both in the decay measurements and the background measurements. I just assume from there that there are neutrinos coming in with intensity having a 4 day period. Someone should make an analysis of this. I can not get the numerical data so I have to get it from the figure. Are there any programs available in Matlab och Scilab for this? The periodicity is easy to find by looking for minima in c(i)=sum(over j)((f(j)-f((j+i)mod j))^2) What astronomical source of neutrinos with a periodicity of 4 days do we know of in space? David Hi The beta decay process is described as neutron -> proton + antielectronneutrino + electron (1) However this process is also possible neutron + electronneutrino -> proton + electron (2) Another slightly probable process is e+e- pair production n + e+ + e- ---> p + nubar_e + e- So decay of a free neutron probably even has more processes that could slightly "cause" decay. You have to take them all into consideration. However, (1) is considered to be the main decay route. FrediFizzx |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.