The electron-positron pair production as well as the β+-emission require a minimum energy of 1,022MeV. Therefore it can be stated that the underlying cause of the β+-emission is a electron-positron pair production within the atomic nucleus. The positron is emitted and the electron is captured. This leads to a consistent image of the β-decays.
(The figure below demonstrate this on the example of the nuclei with A=71.)
Dear Remi!
"What generates the gamma ray...?" This is too short-sighted. On the one hand atomic nuclei themselves are sources of radiation, on the other hand you are entangled in the opinion, that only elctromagnetic radiation leads to pair production. Energy caused the pair production according to E=m*c². The theoretical description of the reaction mechanism is a different matter.
Instability of the atomic nucleus is the cause of β-emission. If both particles e+ and e- are emitted the situation wold be the same as previously. Every reaction/transformation/decay is directed (also in chemistry). Therefore it happens no inner pair production for fun as you accept.
Regards!
Hans
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301614262_The_Reason_of_a_realistic_View_to_Particles_and_Atomic_Nuclei
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
Dear Remi!
I know those theories very well. The only response is to believe or to doubt. You are in belive and I'm in doubt.
Where is the the proof for "quarks"? Anti-particles "backwards in time"? etc.
Could it be, that physics don't recognize some simple physical connections? That a part of this connections resp. experimental findings are unknown to earlier scientists, not accessible or have they simply "overlook" some significant minor details? But their theories still exist.
Theories in physics get out of hand and also the number of particles, which are existing only by "convincing theoretical arguments" (written in a textbook). You can declare the particle-zoo and the atomic nuclei only by using electron and positron, in other words: The material matter is build by the duality of this both elementary particles. This is the easiest possibility. All experiments, all decays, interactions and disintegrations of particles and nuclei prove it. Why should reality exist in a different form as in the easiest?
Regards!
Hans
Those at the institutions are consistent, and possibly all making the same fundamental mistakes in applying math to physics. These problems require that math be reconstructed and applied from the bottom up (smallest scalar to highest). For example, if strings are considered to be object-like, then you cannot use irrational number and imaginary number systems to map the functions (OR) you need to accept that your physical model has been intuitively wrong. You cannot have it both ways at the same time. I think we have found a way to answer questions such as the one posted, but only properly using a relativistic framework. That kind of answer won't hold water until both the math and the physics changes are reviewed and accepted through proper channels. My answer here would be in terms of relativistic models, but I would lack the credentials, as Remi Cornwall points out, to find it accepted here. Even though my work has gotten me accepted as a peer. The reasonable thing I can show here is it would take too much effort here to explain and defend, so it is better that I continue to revise the math and physics and answer the question a bit later. It is more efficient to get the models and proofs done rather than focus on specific problems right now. If we fix the math and physics properly, you friends can answer these questions at this point on your own. I have seen no lack of competence among all professionals. I think you have been given some really bad tools to work with.
Dear Mark!
I have to agree with you, also to your statement: "I have seen no lack of competence among all professionals."
First the knowledge and then mathematics. In present physics determines mathematics the course of things. The real source of knowledge, the experimental physics, is degraded to proof theories, based on mathematics. But the objective reality is not a mathematical derivation. Every theory will confirm finally itself because the experimental results are evaluted by that theory, wich has to be confirm. Physics rotates in circular reasonings and the physicians should pay more attention to contradictions. See my question.
@Remi: Your words confirm my statements above.
Regards!
Hans
What is missing is a more fundamental model of elementary particles. Physicists fail to investigate deeper than the wave function. First discover what an electron is and how it relates to a positron and then you can deliberate on pair production and beta decay.
http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021
Dear Hans!
If you have some time, plase read my paper.
In reality existing only two elementary particles - positron and electron. Both particles are sufficient to declare the structures of all other real particles. No particles has to be invented by "convincing theoretical arguments".
Redards!
Hans-G.
Hans,
Your article treats composites, but does not consider the constituents, which are the actual elementary objects. Without a proper model for these constituents the composites have no proper foundation.
Despite that the elementary objects are point-like, they cover space due to their dynamic behavior. A static point-like object has hardly any properties that can distinguish them as a type.
Hans!
"...the elementary objects are point-like,..."
This is a theoretical determination to an easy mathematical declaration and obviously incorrect. The defectiveness of the current theories is very far-reaching. You can forget probably three-quarter of it and you should be satisfied if the rest is correct.
Furthermore you won't find positrons or electrons in the structures of particles, for example in protons. Those particles are not existing in the well-defined ground state. Comparatively you won't see sodium and chlorine in the chemical compound sodium chloride. First you have to analyse the objects to define its components. Physics don't analyse the objects like chemistry has done, it invents new particles by "convincing theoretical arguments".
Hans
(we have the same name, this is a bit strange ;-)
Hans-G,
Nuclei are configured mainly of quarks, gluons and neutrinos. These are all point-like objects. They combine into baryons and mesons. And these combine into nuclei, such as protons and neutrons. Many of the elementary particles exist in three generations. The elementary particles all belong to the standard model and they all are point-like objects. This means that they are not constituted from other (massive) particles.
Dear Hans (Hildebrandt),
I do not understand well what you aim to mean by saying:
' ...it can be stated that the underlying cause of the β+-emission is a electron-positron pair production within the atomic nucleus. The positron is emitted and the electron is captured.'
In other words, in order to confute neutrino, appearing in the usual ß+-decay
p -> n+e++ve ,
you assume for instability the production of the couple (e+,e-) inside the proton. This is really a good invention ! But it appears less justified than the neutrino existence ...
In fact your claim:
'In reality existing only two elementary particles - positron and electron'
it appears a naive belief ! I do not think that one can seriously do Science in this way ... by simply confuting previous knowledge, and forgetting experimental results obtained in important international laboratories (e.g., CERN, LGNS, Brookhaven NL, ...).
Of course this does not mean that SM is the last corner stone in the Science long road ... In fact my quantum gravity theory proved that quantum particles are extended objects, the fundamental geometry is noncommutative and that quantum gravitons play important roles inside protons and neutrons ...
Regards,
Agostino
>>Nuclei are configured mainly of quarks, gluons and neutrinos...
What Remi says is true is every field, even fields which are constitutionally protected such as politics. With rare exceptions, and those exceptions are often crucified.
No Hans-G !
I cannot share your naive opinion.
Sorry but quantum gravity is a more serious matter than a simple game of 'elementary particles' ... This is a nonsense game.
'Homines quod volunt credunt ...'
@Agostino: We both agree that the present state in physics is not the last word of wisdom and a further development is necessary. I would go so far as to maintain that there are some fundamental erorrs. Therefore my paper.
@Robert: I understood Remis words well. But there is a difference between science and politics: Science is on the quest for truth, politics ... silent in the interests of decorum.
Bertrand Russel said: "Auch wenn alle einer Meinung sind, können alle Unrecht haben." This quote in English?
It appears that most participants of science oriented discussion groups and discussion threads have their own theory, which they consider better than existing theories and use the discussion media such as ResearchGate and LinkedIn as a way to promote their own personal vision. For that reason some other media forbid to reference personal papers that have not yet been published in recognized journals. Words such as crap and crackpots are flying around. This is not astonishing, because many of the inventors are apparently very weak in mathematics and not very strong in physics. For them, publishing in journals will be blocked by the peer-review mechanism.
ArXiv is an open access e-print archive where authors can place their papers without being peer-reviewed, but this institution requires registration and that registration involves endorsement. Vixra offers the same service but does not require registration. As a consequence many readers avoid reading papers on Vixra and are still willing to read papers on ArXiv.
This is a foolish way of communicating with each other.
Personally I publish all my papers on Vixra and I use my website as a workpad. I use the discussion groups in order to test my ideas. I have an academic degree in physics and I have a fair knowledge of advanced mathematics. I use vixra because my papers are too controversial and too unconventional for the peer review barrier.
Dear Hans-G,
you have written:
'We both agree that the present state in physics is not the last word of wisdom and a further development is necessary. I would go so far as to maintain that there are some fundamental erorrs. Therefore my paper.'
With this respect, let me underline that any serious scientist can share the first proposition in your comment. But QFT and SM cannot simply classified wrong theories. In fact they work well in some physical ranges. Of course they are not complete theories. This means that in order to go beyond their limits (not errors) it is necessary to formulate a more general theory that encloses QFT and SM as particular cases. In fact this is the meaning of my quantum gravity theory.
Instead your paper forgets the important results of the previous theories, and in advance you consider serious experimental issues obtained by great international laboratories as big disasters ...
On the other hand you suggest a new point of view that works only in your fantasy ... In the web there are a lot of different elementary particle recipes that are only some stupid games ... arguments of no validity whatsoever.
In this way one cannot seriously do Science.
'Per aspera ad astra ...'
@Hans Van Leunen.
you have written:
'I use vixra because my papers are too controversial and too unconventional for the peer review barrier.'
In this your comment you have focused an actual big problem with the peer review method.
In my opinion this method should be the best one to follow in order to accept a paper for publication on any serious journal. But often journals, also leader ones, betray this noble mechanism since are unable to produce a competent review for innovative papers, especially when they solve great problems ...
The recent Perelman story is well known ...
By the way what can really determine the worth of a paper is its content ... it does not matter where it is published ! This truth is written in the Mathematics History.
'Unicuique suum ...'
Dear Agostino,
I think you should look more closely. On the one hand at "the important results of the previous theories and the serious experimental issues obtained by great international laboratories", on the other hand at the central idea of my paper.
No further comment.
Hans
Dear Hans-G,
I well understood that our points of view drastically diverge. Since you remain on your absurd positions, I must conclude that it is a nonsense to consider you as a my RG follower and vice versa ...
Agostino
No Amrit !
I have already discussed with you on this subject ... There is no room to return on this point.
Regards,
Agostino
Amrit,
In investigating the foundations of physical reality there exist no other choice than relying on pure mathematics. Features and phenomena at the level of the foundation are not observable. They are neither observable by humans, nor by human built instruments, nor by discrete objects that might exist at that level or at a higher level.
At the lowest level not even numbers exist that could be used to describe the features or phenomena. Numbers emerge at a higher level.
Notions of time and space can only be introduced at a level where number systems exist. In this way the evolution path restricts which number systems can be applied.
Since you are a foundation researcher you must know the work of John Baez:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690
We found the pre-eminant research I was hoping for , for our Spinor-Space-Time model. This model has a relativistic engine which goes far beyond the scope of the paper I will link here. I am just glad someone else felt the same way we do. Pair production and even the electromagnetic effects are modified significantly by the Mass/gravity effects, but no one knows this from the perspective we have right now. Space-time is not just a partitioned and isolated calculation for high speed of photons, it has implications in all of physics at all scales. Let's get our math fixed soon. Read this paper as it has the math, and will save us a few months of labor. http://geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Poland93_SpinorsTwistors.pdf
Our world, the reallity resp. the whole universe is not simply a mathematical derivation. I say this in compliance with Robert B. Laughlin's thoughts.
An example: The current physics used at least five theories to describe approximately the atomic nuclei. This theories are based on assumptions (not on proofs), their mathematical formulations leading only nearly the experimental observations and measurings and all of them are contradictory. All exuberant mathematics to describe atomic nuclei is actual a compensation for knowledge.
I have to refer to my paper. Atomic nuclei are grids of well known particles.
It is still a mystery why the theory invents particles like "quarks" to describe nuclei but the real structural particles are proven since the forties and early fifties.
What is overlooked in physics is that some of the physical phenomenons on the atomic and subatomic scale and even 'time' and 'space' and 'spacetime' itself are associated with mathematical descriptions and physical 'conclusions' which had become a credo of mainstream physics, even though the 'conclusions' are assumptions which in many cases are not mandatory.
To clear up existing controversial ideas concerning physical phenomenons in a systematic manner it would be useful to (A) setup a thematically ordered list of all these controversies and (B) setup a list of models or theories which give rise to these controversies or which try to solve these controversies.
Furthermore, physical terms should be used more carefully and should not give rise to confusion. Notions in the context of different mathematical models or different physical theories which aim to the same part of physical reality should not be mixed up by the same names.
This can help to rate contemporary activities in physics as science or as science fiction or as a probably successful mixture of both.
Concerning the quark model and the attempts to setup corresponding theories (QCD), I rate these activities as a mixture of rigorous science and of science fiction. In the same way I consider my own activities in theoretical physics as mixture of rigorous science and of science fiction, being aware that final success of an adventure in theoretical physics is never guaranteed from the beginning.
Finally, Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore. ( Andre P. G. Gide , http://www.brainyquote.com/photos/a/andregide120088.jpg , http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1947/ )
Dear Carl!
I agree. But I see more fiction in science than recognition. The sight of the shore is in current physics the sight of a fata morgana, of a theoretical world parallel to the coast. Therefore I would say, man cannot discover the continents unless he has the courage to enter the ground.
Regards!
Hans-G.
Also your theory or surmise can not explain the experimental fact that electrons emitted in CO-60 beta decay are left-hnded.
Dear Mina!
My paper is an abstract and under no circumstances elaboratet in detail. Yor qestion concerning the left-handed electrons should be answerable by the properties of the sub-particles.
You should recognise that in this theory is no need for unobserved particles like the so called "quarks". Probably works reality without the most of the theoretical fata morganas.
Regards!
Hans
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics
- Elementary Particle Physics