Hans-G> Is the cause of the β+-decay of atomic nuclei a hidden pair production?

In a sense (but not in your sense): a positron-neutrino pair is produced.

Hans-G> the β+-transformation of atomic nuclei require the same minimum energy of 1,022MeV.

No, the transmuted nuclei must only have a mass 0.511 MeV/c2 lower than its parent. (It is true that the transmuted neutral atom must have a mass 1.022 MeV/c2 lower than its neutral parent atom, since it also has one less electrons attached, but that is irrelevant for energetics of the decay process.)

Hans-G> But the facts are in contradiction with this theory.

Only in post-factual environments.

Hans-G>  It is permissible to doubt.

Like it is permissible to believe the earth is flat.

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt,

the beta+ decay and  electron capture are two competing processes resulting in the conversion of a proton inside the nucleus into a neutron but they are different processes. It should be noted that beta+ decay is always accompanied by neutrino emmision whereas electron capture is accompanied by X-ray emmission corresponding to atomic levels.  

the pair production requires a threshold of energy corresponding to the sum of rest masses of electron and positron but there exist no such threshold for the beta+ decay.

the last conclusion can not be physically valid because the pair production happens in the presence of external field to conserve linear momentum, it doesn't occur inside nucleus thus the conclusion can not be held valid.

Dear sh Ameer!

You are declaring the current theory. But the facts are in contradiction with this theory. Therefore my question. A contradiction between observation and theory can not be solved by reference to the theory.

If you take a closer look you will see that the pair production as reason of the beta+-transformation is absolutely consistent with the electron capture. You can also say it is a hidden electron capture.

The electron capture is in current theories accompanied by electromagnetic radiation (observed and proven) and the emission of a "neutrino" (only indirect proven). It is permissible to doubt.

My Regards! Hans

Hans-G> Is the cause of the β+-decay of atomic nuclei a hidden pair production?

In a sense (but not in your sense): a positron-neutrino pair is produced.

Hans-G> the β+-transformation of atomic nuclei require the same minimum energy of 1,022MeV.

No, the transmuted nuclei must only have a mass 0.511 MeV/c2 lower than its parent. (It is true that the transmuted neutral atom must have a mass 1.022 MeV/c2 lower than its neutral parent atom, since it also has one less electrons attached, but that is irrelevant for energetics of the decay process.)

Hans-G> But the facts are in contradiction with this theory.

Only in post-factual environments.

Hans-G>  It is permissible to doubt.

Like it is permissible to believe the earth is flat.

Hans,

Some years ago I realized that the Beta decays were the key to understanding the subatomic better.  When I put together a new model of the atom it includes the Neutron having in it a Hydrogen atom which is collapsed, a positron electron pair, and Neutrinos which are compressed into the atomic center of the Neutron.  This is the reason that what you are talking about has so much merit at least to me.  

Georg,

I have analysed dozens of particle transformations and interactions and I have evaluated the datas of all(!) atomic nuclei. There was never a "quark" or a "neutrino" reqired or otherwise visible to declare the datas which were collected for more than 100 years. I do understand the structures of the particles and all atomic nuclei but I do not understand the thoughts of the great scientists in this matter.

@Kåre: Forget the neutrino. It is only an inner amount of energy which has an effect like an particle. If you have understand this you can say that you have understand particle physics.

Hans,

I am not sure of your point but when I look at the typical Beta decay there are several things that I see and then other physicists do not (evidently) see it the way I see it.

My understanding is based off the beta decay starts when a Neutron is ejected from an atom.  What is produces is:

A)   1- Proton

B)   1- Electron

C)   1- Anti-Electron  (Positron)

D)   Approximately (3 times the mass of an Electron) in What is called Energy.......

What my model does is propose that this "so called energy" is what we see as Neutrinos that show up in the radioactive decays.  They are not just something that we can ignore as though if does not exist.  Even Albert Einstein who did not care about atomic structure knew that Energy had to carry mass with it and this is why we have atomic Physics today (E=MC2) is a direct relation to energy and its mass but we still insist that this energy that comes off a Beta decay is just nothing.

We miss the structure of an atom because we are blind to the reality of what has to be in an atom.  I am not here to argue with you about this it does not matter to me if you do not think I am correct only that you understand what I am saying.

The ability to analysis the atom on this scale is only a guess anyway as we could not possibly measure something that was just one part of an atom.  This would not be possible no matter how good the machine was.  We end up measuring thousands of something and averaging to get the answers mostly.  

All I am saying is that our ability or I should say or inability to measure just one at a time things on the sub-atomic scale has lead us to think incorrectly about energy and mass.  I am not sure that Albert was correct on the E=MC2 equation I even think that he vastly underestimated the amount of energy in the atom but I think that he was correct in the thought that energy and mass can not be separated.   They are different manifestations of the same thing.

When we stop thinking in this way we loose track of reality and thereby truth.

There is not energy that is just energy and will never be or have mass with it.  All energy carries mass and all mass can have energy.

George Van Hoesen

Hans-G> Forget the neutrino.

Look at the beautiful picture of the sun below. Imaged with solar neutrinos instead of photons. Already today neutrinos are useful for exploration of nature. Hopefully, sometime in the future one can exploit their (tiny) magnetic moments for more direct and precise observations.

Don't forget the neutrinos. They help us understand the workings of nature.

@Kåre: This picture is a bad joke! You ought to inform you how it was made.

It is taken by observing solar neutrinos kicking electrons out of their bound (water molecule) orbitals in the big, deep underground, Kamiokande "swimming pool" in Japan. Since the kicked-out electrons move faster than the speed of light in water, they will emit directed Cherenkov radiation, which is registered. From this, the direction of the fast moving electron is determined. The kinematics is such that the electron will move essentially in the same direction as the solar neutrino which initiated the process (with some straggling, which blurs the picture somewhat).

Hence, the Kamiokande observatory can measure a flux of neutrinos from the Sun, including verification of their solar origin, based on the observed direction of motion. It is no joke here, but a very interesting story of observational science. Just google "neutrino oscillations" or "solar neutrino problem" (or "Kamiokande" for that matter). And "Raymond Davies", for a true hero of science.

@Kåre: You belive in "neutrinos" and therefore you will belive every alleged proof of "neutrinos". But there exist no direct proof of "neutrinos" significantly.

I refer to the first "proof of neutrinos" by Reines/Cowan in 1956. The observation of  positrons and neutrons was rated as an indirect proof of "neutrinos".

The "neutrinos" to be proven should be emitted from a nuclear reactor. It is absolutely sure that a nuclear reactor emits neutrons and it is impossible to shield them. You will steady observe within the detector neutron-events. The neutrons interact willingly with other atomic nuclei par example with the used Cd-113 nuclei. This caused gamma-rays which are causing positrons by pair-production. The "neutrino"-proof is done without "neutrinos".

The experimenters observed very often a neutron event immediately prior the wanted positron and neutron events. This means that the positrons are actual caused by pair production caused by neutron interactions. If you see clear then was the first "neutrino" proof a counterevidence of neutrinos.

Your ghost image can have many other causes as "neutrinos".

By the way: You are talking down the initial question once again. Stay at the topic please!

@George: Some other colleagues select also the hydrogenium atom as starting point to approximate on the subatomic structures. Me too in a certain sense. I came later at the point that I have to analyse the particle interactions:

p + n ↔ d;    n  ↔  p + e-;      p+ + p-  →  ω0 + π+ + π− 

and many others. It is striking that the light mesons are observed like ten a penny. But never was a "quark" observed. The conclusion has to be drawn that the mesons are the structural particles and the "quarks" only theoreticaly inventions to declare the not understood reality. Present physicists has created its own parallel world. But the most physician are living in this castle of the air.

My Regards! Hans

Hans-G,

I agree.  Thank you for your thoughts.

``when a Neutron is ejected from an atom.  What is produces is:

A)   1- Proton

B)   1- Electron

C)   1- Anti-Electron  (Positron)''

A neutron is...well...neutral. A proton is positively charged, whereas the negative charge of the electron is compensated by the positive one of the positron: somehow you managed to transmute a neutral object to a charged one. Interesting alchemy!

@F.Leyvraz: I wish more substantial answers. Maybe you heva a view on the question.

An interesting alchemy is indeed the current theory about the beta-decays. Absolutely inconsistent and resting upon far-fetched assumptions.

Hans-G> a view on the question: interesting alchemy; Absolutely inconsistent; physics has created its own parallel world;  most physician are living in this castle of the air

Are the above your model examples of "more substantial answers"?

Btw

phy·si·cian: 

1. a person who is legally qualified to practice medicine; doctor of medicine.

2. a person engaged in general medical practice, as distinguished from one specializing in surgery.

3. a person who is skilled in the art of healing.

F. Leyvraz,

This is not alchemy it is the standard line in particle physics.  We are missing how the atom has to be put together totally if we do not see this as a clue to the make up of an atom.   Some ten years ago I put together a new model of the atom given this beta decay information. (Not a Math model) but a physical model of the atom that shows how this has to work.  The only response I received even thought the model worked well, was "you are wrong".....

This leads me to believe that the true make up of an atom is truly bad and only based on the math not a physical understanding of that is there and the processes that have to be going on.  

The atom is not some magic thing with properties that are not knowable but a physical thing that makes up all mass in the Universe. 

It is far from Alchemy, but we have to stop ignoring the physical side in favor of the math side of the issue.  This math is not "Wrong" it just leads us in the wrong direction.

The example is that just because a positive and negative charge come together does not mean that the resulting particle is not charged...  It rather means that the over all charge is Neutral.  A dipole is Neutral over all but has charges at either end.  Therefore it is not truly neutral.  The inside of an atom is the same way.  just because a Neutron seems to be charge-less does not mean it has no charge but rather that its overall charge is zero.

The same problem exists in particle physics where positron and electron pairs are created and destroyed.  The idea that we just ignore the physical part of this interaction as if they do not exist is puzzling to me.  They are not annihilated or created from nothing and do not go to nothing.  They have a physical existence that is being ignored.  This type of approach to Physics is the thing that is making it so hard to get beyond your current understanding and move to reality.

Please do not take this wrong but we must stop making things seem as if there is some magic in the science.  We should be several hundred years past the magic being real.  We need to leave that to the history of the dark ages and the starting of the reformation not modern science.

George Van Hoesen     

``just because a Neutron seems to be charge-less does not mean it has no charge but rather that its overall charge is zero.''

No problem there. And this doubtless allows the decay of a neutron into charged constituents, as indeed happen in beta decay. But when the neutron decays, the total charge of the products should vanish, or else you have violated charge conservation, which is over all rather well documented experimentally. An atom, over all neutral, also *never* decays into a set of products with non-zero total charge.

As to the magic, I fully agree. However, I am not quite sure that explanations made without knowledge of, or consideration for, the relevant experimental background, are likely to bring science closer to ``common sense''. That attempts to explain science in common sense terms often fail, is a regrettable fact. Sometimes it is simply because even the best explanations have no effect when the reader is not listening. On the other hand, it may happen that the attempt to make science clearer is clumsily made, and uses analogies which confuse rather than help the reader. Finally, it also happens, above all in some foundational issues in quantum mechanics, that we cannot explain reality in common sense terms, because what we know of reality, from experiments, seems to defy common sense.

However, attempting to explain one experiment with a wholly new theory, that throws overboard three centuries of physics, is an approach not likely to succeed. My test question to anyone with a new TOE would always be: can you quantitatively derive the behaviour of Atwood's machine  with it (two different masses hanging from a massless pulley by an inextensible thread, in Earth's gravity)? Any theory pretending to unify all 4 basic forces should be able to do it, or it is not worth the paper it is written on (the more common case).

Dear colleague

In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta ray (fast energetic electron or positron), and a neutrino are emitted from an atomic nucleus. For example, beta decay of a neutron transforms it into a proton by the emission of an electron, or conversely a proton is converted into a neutron by emission of a positron (positron emission), thus changing the nuclide type. Neither the beta particle or its associated neutrino exist within the nucleus prior to beta decay, but are created in the decay process. By this process, unstable atoms obtain a more stable ratio of protons to neutrons. The probability of a nuclide decaying due to beta and other forms of decay is determined by its binding energy. The binding energies of all existing nuclides form what is called the nuclear valley of stability.

Regards 

@Martin: The β-transformation of tritium is an emission of an e-. The decay-energy is arbitrary in this case. Your answer is not an answer on my question.

@Kåre: "No, the transmuted nuclei must only have a mass 0.511 MeV/c2 lower than its parent."

Only the decay-energy of the transforming nucleus is relevant and this energy has to be 1,022MeV at least in case of a positron-emission. The masses of the nuclei resp. the mass-difference is of no significance. Your answer is absolute nonsens.

If the physicians just as the physicists know about thier field of work nobody would go to the doctor. By the way I'm not an interpreter and very imperfect in English.

@Martin: No, they are not fundamentally different. The β-transformations are leading from opposite sides step by step to the eqilibrium state of an atomic nucleus. See the picture below.

@Martin: I can take any atomic nucleus with a certain mass number as an example. All the three types of different β-transformations are always similar with each other and  also the decay of tritium. With other words: The β--transformation of the tritium is not a special case within the β--transformations. I was the opinion that you would see this fact.

Or could you explain exactly what you mean?

The special about the nucleus with mass number A=3 is that it has only two states: 1-h-3 and 2-he-3. I shall made this diagramm.

@Kåre: >>Look at the beautiful picture of the sun below. Imaged with solar neutrinos instead of photons. ...

@ HGH: ``Are the neutrinos focussed?''

Of course not, and you are right in saying so. However your further conclusions are flawed: Kamiokande is not merely a photograhic plate which records the position of the incoming neutrino. It also determines the velocity, in other words the direction from which the neutrino comes. This together with position allows to determine which part of the Sun the neutrino comes from. No fraud.

The curious thing is why you  prefer the explanation of fraud: a minimal attempt to inform yourself, or even a careful reading of Kare's remarks, would have shown you the solution. Somehow, for you, it is more gratifying to slander others than to understand what happens.

How far are you gone that you should be reduced to such baseless imaginings!

@ Thierry: Monologue? I just answered HGH's question about the production of the neutrino photograph. On the other hand, I am dismayed by the facility with which the ``non-mainstream'' gentlemen resort to conspiratorial explanations, when 5 minutes reading could have convinced them, that the objections they were raising were void. So, after giving the self-evident answer, I gave expression to this dismay:no monologue, nor disgracefulness here.

We *are* here to have a decent dialogue, to which your uncouth remark does not contribute in the slightest.

I remind the initially question. It is obviously that the β+-decay is caused by a pair-production and therefore the whole theory about the β-decays is meaningless. I refer also to the possibility to outline all real particles by the electron-positron-duality.

@F.Leyvraz: I respect the wish to have a decent and respectfull dialouge. But both sides please!

It is clearly visible that there are two types of scientists. The one who belive in and defend the outdated theories and the others who are in doubt about it. IOW, we have a similar situation as at the times of Kopernikus. The knowledge of the world resp. the reality will never be finished. No scientist has to forbid or ridicule new ideas.

@Martin: I might not have fully understood you.

The pair-production is the cause of the β+-decay. The β+-decay reqires a minimum energy of 1,022MeV like the pair production. This can not be a coincidence. This energy is necessary to generate an e+e--pair. The electron is captured and the positron is emitted. What we are observing is less than the half of that what actual happened. Positron emission and electron capture are fundamental consistent processes.

In case of the capture of an external electron the needed electron always exist. It has not to be produced. The energy is arbitrary and it's only a question of time (resp. decay energy) until the event take place. After capture the electron is bound by an internal transformation of the subparticles.

In case of the emission of an electron the electron always exist as a surplus electron within the atomic nucleus. Exactly: it is bound within the substructural particles of the atomic nucleus. It is realised by an internal transformation of those particles.

The transformation of the tritium is a β--decay or electron emission:

1-t-3 → 2-he-3 + e-

The energetically different places within the nucleus grid are leading to the decay schemes. But this is another story.

Hans-G> The masses of the nuclei resp. the mass-difference is of no significance.

So, in your environments the conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and Bose-Fermi statistics is of no significance.

Hans-G> Your answer is absolute nonsens.

From you this is a very reassuring statement to hear. 

Hans-G> I'm not an interpreter and very imperfect in English.

Relative to your science your English is very close to perfect. In some cases the RG editor can be quite helpful with trivial misspellings. For instance, when you write your favourite word nonsens you should note that it becomes underlined in red. This is not because RG automatically disapproves with your wordings (it would be a great improvement if that was the case), but because this is interpreted as a misspelling.   

No the two processes don't have anything to do with each other.  It's possible to study beta decay using trapped ions: https://str.llnl.gov/september-2013/scielzo . Positron capture is related to beta decay, not to pair production.

Incidentally: neutrino oscillations imply that the neutrino, involved in beta decay, which has a definite flavor-it's associated with the electron or the positron-if lepton number is conserved, doesn't have a definite mass. 

Thank you for the answer, Stam. But the neutrino oscillations were never observed. They are theoretical conclusions solely. I do not reason my ideas and thoughts on an uncertain theoretical base. I'm also the opinion that a theory can never be the base for following theories because theories are unproven and unfalsified in the sense of Popper. The building of science becomes more and more speculative on this theoretical way. If I view physics then I have to say that the theories are lie on top of each other in the fourth or fifth generation. No further comment.

"Positron capture is related to beta decay." Yes, of course! But the pair production is it's real cause. See the eaqual minimum energy of both processes. I'm very amazed that nobody pointed on this fact, no textbook mentioned it and no great theory exist about it.

The lepton number is conserved by my approach on the beta-decays. But it is violated by the "neutrinos" what means by the doctrine.

Well neutrino oscillations have been observed, since 1995 and there are several reviews on the topic, so asserting that is in contradiction to experiment. 

Positron capture, like beta decay is a weak interaction effect; pair production is an electromagnetic effect. While there are virtual pairs produced at higher order, positron capture, to leading order, doesn't have anything to do with vacuum polarization.  Words mean something. 

The theory that describes beta decay and positron capture is the electroweak part of the Standard Model-so there's no point trying to use known words in a meaningless way, just to attract attention.

"Neutrinos" are of no significance with my initial question. It was Kares attempt to talk down my question by distraction on this side stage.

@Stam: "Neutrinos" were never directly observed and also the so-called "neutrino-osscillations". The "neutrino"-theory based solely on Paulis attempt to declare the beta-spectre and on some indirect evidences or better to say: on the evaluations of experiments prescribed by theory wich has to be proven (see the link below).

If you go by that all particles and atomic nuclei have a spectre of different internal energies then emitted particles must have different energies too. The different internal energy is a fact and also visible as radiation spectre of a black body. No one would invent a "photontrino". The different energy is also apparent in the velocity distribution of gas molecules and it is the cause of the uncertainty relation.

In the world of particles prevail other laws as in the world of mechanical objects which consist of a very huge amount of particles.

"Positron capture, like beta decay is a weak interaction effect; pair production is an electromagnetic effect." This indeed is the theory which is at issue and this can never be an argument against new ideas.

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

@Martin: I analyse the available data (observations, measurements, records etc.) and I draw conclusions. I adhered with my considerations to the informations about the reality respectively to the reality. I don't think up theories which are reflecting the reality according to my personal ideas and wishes. I don't create an unprovable theoretical world which is only falsificable in the sense of Popper. Last but not least: I do not found my thoughts on overtaken theories from times as many experimental results were unknown.

In German: Ich analysiere verfügbare Daten (Beobachtungen, Messungen, Aufzeichnungen, etc.) und ziehe Schlussfolgerungen. Ich bleibe bei meinen Überlegungen immer dicht an den Informationen, die über die Realität verfügbar sind bzw. eng an der Realität. Ich denke mir keine Theorien aus, welche die Realität widerspiegeln entsprechend meinen persönlichen Vorstellungen und Wünschen. Ich erschaffe keine unbeweisbare theoretische Welt, die im popperschen Sinne nur widerlegt werden kann. Nicht zuletzt gründe ich meine Überlegungen nicht auf überholte Theorien aus einer Zeit, in der viele der heute bekannten experimentellen Ergebnisse nicht verfügbar waren, sondern ich stelle diese in Frage.

I don't go the way of the great theoreticians of the 20th century.

To any one wishing to test whether our ``heroes'' are really that, or simply old fashioned liars, I recommend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment

It actually is not: you have a given  theory. It predicts a given observable result in a given experimental setup. The experiment is made. The result is observed. This is *confirmation* of the theory. There may indeed be an alternative explanation for the observed results in the framework of another theory. That does not mean that the initial confirmation of the theory is invalid. If a alternative theory exists, it has to be separately examined, to see whether any other prediction it makes can be substantiated. No such alternative theory exists for neutrinos.

You *are* right on one point: experiment *never* proves a theory. Nor did I say it did. It confirms it, which is already a lot. A good experiment confirming a sound theory is far better than a lousy observation ``proving'' a wrong theory.

@Martin: I'm declaring the world resp. the reality by evaluations of facts, datas, observations etc. I do not create unobserved objects (mostly particles, but also types of matter and others) or as the theoreticians like to say: by so far unobserved but according to the theory espected objects. Such predictions are determining not only the following experiments and evaluations but the whole science. On this way the science is trapped in its own predictions resp. prophecies.

See the so called "neutrino"-evidence of Reines/Cowan: "Neutrinos" were espected according to the theory. But there was to this day no discussion about other causes of the actual observed positrons and neutrons. This is unbelivable and irresponsible in an exact science!

The spectre of internal energy leads in rare cases to an opposite decay of atomic nuclei. If the amount of energy exeeds ≈0,2MeV(?) in case of the 31-ga-71 nucleus then it may happen an opposite decay to 32-ge-71. This can be proven as happened in the GALLEX-experiment. GALLEX has the "neutrino" also proven without any "neutrino".

The discrepancy between the calculations based on Reines/Cowan and the observarions in GALLEX leads to the theory of the neutrino-oscillation. This mystical oscillation was in fact never observed but it is considered proven in particle physics.

@Thierry: Yor answer hits the nail on the head!

@F.Leyvraz: Forget the Wikipedia. It is written by mainstream scientists.

@Martin: There is no information about alternative or critical dicussions of the Reines/Cowan experiment. Obviously is the lack of the understanding of particle interactions and transformations very significant that nobody has seen the easy counterdeclaration of this experiment. In regards to the theories about the particle world this is not a wonder.

If I read your comment I have to say that you have learned the theories but not understood the reality. You don't understand obviously any declarations or ideas outside of the theories.

The GALLEX experiment is on the same level as the Reines/Cowan experiment. The "neutrino" was espected and only the "neutrino" was used to declare the experiment. Every atomic nucleus can be subjected to an opposite beta-decay to an instable state if its internal energy overtakes the decy energy of the instable state. 30t Gallium were used in this experiment, this means 3*107g*6,023*1023*0,4/69,72g ≈ 1029 ga-71 nuclei. The very rare opposite decay was observed at a very high amount of nuclei in this experiment - not the "neutrino".

"Again I ask you to show that your electron/positron energy spectrum is consistent with data." I don't right understand your question.

``The very rare opposite decay was observed at a very high amount of nuclei in this experiment - not the "neutrino".''

Excellent! Finally a clear statement. Of coure, that means, I suppose, that you have an unambiguous way of predicting the rate of such inverse processes, and to identify the factors that influence them. These identified, it would be interesting to see whether they indeed influence Gallium ``inverse decay'' in the way you predict.

Talk, as such, is cheap. Do you somewhere have an actual prediction that could be checked (or more likely invalidated, but that is the way of science) for any of your claims?

@Leyvraz: It is exactly as yourself said elsewhere: You and your coreligionists are unable to look over the plate of the doctrine. Your comments are a stubborn conventionalism to outdated theories.

I'm sorry to say, but physics is in its present stage not sustainable. It invented not only by itself unobservable "quarks". To declare what holds the world together at the core - "gluons"! Its just unbelievable! Why all the efforts, why all the expensive experiments and so on. The great physicists are able to declare the whole world by their mental imagination.

The question why the minimum energy at pair production and β+-decay are equal - who cares?

@HGH: Have you no better argument against the whole of modern particle physics than the fact that you do not like the vocabulary they have chosen? Or do you actually know something we do not about why gluons cannot explain the nuclear force?

@Leyvraz: It would be nice to hear from you any argument instead of praying permanent the doctrine. Are you not able to realise the ridiculousness of "gluons"? Are you not able to realise the absurdity of the self defined non-provability of the "quark"-theory? ...

There is an alternative description of the particle world. It is absolutely consistent. Not a single particle has to be invented by theoretical arguments. The well known evidenced particles are the only one existing particles. The actual structures of the particles and atomic nuclei become visible. All the interactions and decays of particles can be described precisely and much more.

The whole of modern particle physics is a misconception from the beginning. It is so far apart from the reality that a person like you will hardly understand it.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

@Martin: With respect: The deep elastic scattering of electrons showed that the protons consist of three sub-particles - nothing more and nothing less. The quark-hypothesis of Feynman at about the same time leads to the assumption that the observed "partons" are Feynmans prophesied "quarks" [ Proton p = (uud) ].

Why are heaps of money spend to prove the "quarks" if there no doubt about them? I remind of more than 15Bio. (in German 15Mrd. Euro) for the LHC-Experiment.

And I refer to the paper above: The protons consist actual of three sub-particles [ Proton p = (π+ π− μ+) ]. This is clearly visible by analysing the particle decays and interactions. Those particles are known for decades. It is quite incomprehensible why in physics more and more imaginary particles are invented to declare the real particles.

``Why are heaps of money spend to prove the "quarks" if there no doubt about them?''

Many misconceptions there: a) no experiment ever proves anything. It always provides confirmation, or else a disproof, of the theory b) under no circumstances is the question ever so vague as ``do quarks exist?" Rather, we have a theory which, for a given experimentally specified setup, makes a precise quantitative prediction (within given error bounds, which arise both from the nature of the experiment and often from the impossibility of determining quite accurately the theoretical prediction). The experiment is then made and the quantitative experimental result is compared with the theoretical prediction.

And of course, there is always doubt about scientific theories. But due to the experimental work performed in high particle physics, the theories have been extensively confirmed by experiment. Further, the considerable body of experimental knowledge will make it more difficult to find theories which explain all the extant data, so that the search for theories, being more constrained, is more likely to be fruitful.

The problem may be in that the fundamental model of the atom is incorrect and because of that the theories that come from it may match the experiments that they have specifically set up to prove it is correct but that does not make the model correct only the experiments.

As a scientist it is easy to get caught in the trip that is always set by starting with the assumption that the theory is correct and building experiments around that assumption.

We know in principle the results of our experiments for large scale things like mixing two hydrogen gas molecules with one Oxygen molecules and just add some energy and we get lots of more energy and water.   

This sounds simple but in fact we never just do one atom or molecule at a time.  We do a mole at a time (6.022 X 10^23 molecules).  So what we are playing with is statistical averages not what really happens when you heat up one atom of Oxygen and you place it close to 2 atoms of Hydrogen or even in this case one molecule of H2 because that is the form we see it in not the H standing alone.

The difficulty is that no matter how hard we try to explain a statistical average as a one atom reaction there is no way to measure that.  Sure we can explain it by dividing the reaction by a number like Avagodros and hope to get within a few decimal points of accurate (Assuming that the latest number for that 6.022 X 10^23 is 100% accurate considering we keep getting that number more and more refined as time goes on).  The reality is we have absolutely no idea what happens at a one to one rate.  

This is why Physics more than 117 years ago started being called "Mathematical Physics"  and is primarily thought of as "Statistical Mechanics"   This however has little to do with "Physics".  Physics is the study of how the Physical World Works and not a study in "Math"  Math is the study of how that works and yet we are more than 100 years from General Relativity, a long time after splitting of the atom, in the age of super computing and still we have no idea what a Photon is...  or how the inside of an atom is put together or even if the atom is only divided into Quarks or maybe something smaller like a Photon with charge which in turn gives that Photon mass.

The answer to those questions are not found in the math but in the Physical understanding of how things work.  Theory is not helping us understand this it is standing in the way.

George 

Just a comment on your apt remark that many experiments work ``in the large'': there are exceptions, see for example:

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

If the observed reactions at the level of isolated molecules confirm what is expected from other experiments, it strongly diminishes your doubts concerning our ignorance about the atom.

Further, we have a large amount of *independent* information concerning the atom. We know rather a lot about spectroscopic structure, and we have a very precise theory to account for that. Again, this theory makes specific predictions about what reacitions occur and how, and these predictions are verified.

As to questions such as ``what'' is any specific kind of object, say a photon, I do not believe a scientific answer can be said to exist outside of a framework in which qualitative prediction exists, and experiment provides verification for these  predictions.

This I think is my point.  If we do not know what is going on and can not know for sure then we are just guessing? 

Even if that Guess is based on lots of information from tests it is still just a guess.

@Martin: First of all, you still have not explained why such a configuration should be stable ...

Counterquestion: How declares the doctrine why such a configuration as (uud) is stable and why never one single quark was observed? To say that quarks consist only in confinement is not a explanation but a admission of a pure speculative theory.

And how declares the doctrine why the mouns, pions and many other particles arise at all interactions of protons and atomic nuclei at high energies?

I have declared the actual structures of all particles and atomic nuclei on the easiest way using the well known and in high amounts observed particles. It is not my fault that the present physics is going along the way of a evidence free and mystical world view.

"Jenseits des Wissens beginnt der Glaube." Einstein

@ HGH: ``It would be nice to hear from you any argument instead of praying permanent the doctrine. ''

You miss the point: physics is not decided by ``arguments'' as in the time of the Schoolmen. The issue is not whether gluons are ridiculous or not, or whether the Big Bang is against ``common sense''. Those are questions your friends from the Inquisition used to ask, they are outside the purview of science.

The standard model is given by a (complex) well defined computational procedure. These predictions have been verified quantitatively in, probably, thousands of instances. It is a messy structure, with 19 parameters involving ordinary particles and 7 more for neutrinos. But the particles today known to physics run in the thousands. Being to explain the various masses and characteristics of thousands of different particles with 19 parameters is an impressive achievement.

Under no circumstances can this be compared with a purely dogmatic and qualitative assertion such as ``a proton is two piona and a muon'' or whatever. What does the verb ``is'' mean here? Can you create a model of the proton on that basis? What does it predict for different scattering experiments involving protons?

Hans-G> The quark-hypothesis of Feynman... Feynmans prophesied "quarks"...

I don't think Feynman ever promoted quarks -- that was the brainchild of the guy down the hall (Gell-Mann). He did promote the idea of nucleon substructure as the concept of partons.

Today one will say that Feynman's partons  can be quarks, antiquarks and gluons. The deep inelastic scattering experiments does show nucleon substructure, but in no way that it is composed of exactly three partons; the picture is much more nuanced and richer. There is one of several structure functions whose integral is predicted to equal 3; I believe it is a way to count the number of valence quarks -- sort of. Ironically, it needs the scattering of neutrinos off the nucleons to be measured. And yes, the neutrinos you don't believe in is used as a practical standard tool in experimental particle physics.

Hans-G > Counterquestion...

You should not happen to be a politician by profession?

Hans-G>  the doctrine...

QCD is not a doctrine, it a precisely formulated theory which has been successfully tested quantitatively quite extensively. Some aspects are hard to analyse mathematically, but are supported by lattice simulations. Overall it provides a coherent and consistent picture of  the physics of strong interactions. That is not to say that it yet is a closed chapter of physics. Just like molecular physics is not a closed chapter, although it in principle should be deductible from well understood quantum mechanics and electromagnetism.

Hans-G> I have declared

That is an example of a doctrine.

Sorry, but I see no answers, no arguments, no declarations in accordance with the reality resp. with the well known facts about reality. I hear always the same words: The theories are right because they have to be right because they are declaring the reality more or less sufficient.

Physics has in its theories taken a Godly path to declaring the reality by creating its own reality. What else are quarks, dark matter, black holes and so on? This reminds of the alchemists who tried to explain the world by fire, water, air and earth and their abstract properties. On the one hand it is impossible to declare the world without fundamental knowledges about the reality, on the other hand it is impossible as well to leave the facts aside or rely on phenomenal mental abilities.

Has Feynman exactly analysed the decays and interactions of particles as he was coming up with his "quarks"? No, his theory was a pure mental creation regardless of the actual observed particles. The related theory of the β-decays is a mess and therefore my question above.

Has Pauli take into consideration a various amount of inner energy of the decaying particles and nuclei? No, he was biased in the mechanistical picture of particles: the same particles are eaqual each other like billiard balls. Such incomplete concepts make it necessary to assume or better invent an additional particle during decay. It is incomprehensible that physics adhere to such primeval ideas until today.

There are many more possible examples.

If the science treads new ground it can not simply transfer the old laws and concepts on the new circumstances. The "big bang" of knowledge lies still ahead physics.

Hans-G> Has Feynman exactly analysed...

Yes. The works of Feynman and others were based on experimental results, which revealed a curious kind of data collapse when scattering electrons on nucleons. A function which was theoretically expected to depend on two variables, could (with proper choice of variables) be shown to depend on only one. This became known as Bjorken scaling.

Feynman, and I believe others, then showed that this behaviour had a natural explanation if the scattering actually occurred on point-like objects (partons) inside the nucleons. Afterwards, the field was later developed by many scientists, as a close collaboration between experiments and theory.

To dismiss this whole well understood area of experimental physics is like saying that the Moon can very likely be a piece of Swiss cheese glued to the celestial sphere.

Hans-G> Has Pauli take into consideration a various amount of inner energy of the decaying particles and nuclei?

There are several aspects which must fit: (i) conservation of energy, possibly taken into account several quantised energy levels of the nuclei involved, (ii) conservation of linear momentum, (iii) conservation of angular momentum, and (iv) conservation of particle statistics, which requires an unobserved escaping particle which is a fermion. I am sure (i) and (iv) were experimentally well known to Pauli at the time of his suggestion. Since the puzzle had existed for a few years, and many possible solutions had been discussed.

Your sweeping assumption that scientists are uncritical fools is quite unfounded.

``I hear always the same words: The theories are right because they have to be right because they are declaring the reality more or less sufficient.''

This is really your problem: you hear what you want to hear and are stone deaf to everything else. You have been told in all possible ways that the present edifice of theoretical physics is generally accepted because of its superb agreement with a huge number of sophisticated and intricate experiments.

To this your reaction is that all experiments require some theoretical input, therefore no experiment confirms any theory, and everything is circular.

While the first remark is basically correct, it holds for all of science: experiments are never simple-minded and pure acts of data collection. There is always a large amount of underlying theory. Thus, in the Reines/Cowan experiment, one needs theory to know what neutrons which come into the detector will do, as compared to neutrinos. For this we have a large number of established facts concerning neutrons. Further, Reines and Cowan set the experiment up in such a way that neutrinos would provide two coincident events, one due to the emitted  positron, the other to the neutron. We also need a theory of what neutrinos are expected to do, which was given by Fermi. This was confirmed by Reines/Cowan to a significant extent. Then a large number of other experiments confirmed this picture at the quantitative model. At this level, the confirmation is so extensive, that it really becomes absurd to speak of circularity.

``Quantitative'' is the word you seem to have difficulty with. Did Feyman analyse the decays of particles ``exactly'' as he came up with ``quarks''? Well no, in fact, he did not come up with quarks to start with. But now we have a theory involving quarks, for which a great any detailed quantitative predictions are made. It is not important *who* make these predictions: it was not Feynman, but it is today's ``Standard Model''. And this model is extensively verified, not by such statements as ``quarks exist'', but rather by detailed calculations of particle cross sections, as observed verified and checked in particle accelerators.

But why am I losing my time? You do not listen...do not listen...do not listen...deaf...deaf...deaf....

Indeed, *after* the way in which the ``neutrino photograph'' was taken, was clearly explained to you (the detectors do not only detect position, but also direction, so they are not equivalent to a photographic plate), you have the nerve to put this objection in the main question. Did you not understand the answer? Or do you still think you are right to object to the ``photo''? Does it mean that you are too stupid to understand the simple things you are told? Or that, having understood that the photo is all right, you decide, explicitly, to keep on lying and lying? Which is it?

By the way, there is a nice historical description from the period when quarks and partons really emerged as dynamical entities (not only as group representations), written by my Norwegian friend Finn Ravndal.

Note added: I now discovered that I had never read this account before, only a much shorter version from some 20 years ago. Rereading some statements by alternate "scientists" after this description of what really happened (from only a quite limited region of space and time) makes one realise how shockingly insulting and ignorant and plain dumb such statements are. I start to think that many sections of RG are actually dangerous to true researchers, because one constantly gets exposed to so much disinformation and stupidities that it distorts ones ability to perform critical thinking in the true sense of this expression.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0509.pdf

It is exactly as I said: I see no answers. There are only refers to the theories which are on trial. Physics is used to declare the reality by theories and not by knowledge (in German: nicht durch Erkenntnis).

To my initial question: The obvious fact is that the β+-decay is based on a hidden pair production. Alone this fact nixed the whole theory about the β-decays and supports my paper below.

You are right, Martin: You all should open your ideas and you will see.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

@Martin: You should take a closer look.

Martin> The β+ decay of Cu 64 only needs 0.653 MeV.

Thank you Martin for verifying the claim in my "Popular answer" above. I tried to find an explicit example, but gave up. Kudos to you!

There is obviously an error or better a false presentation at Wikipedia.

The energetic level of the β+-decay of 29-Cu-64 which you mean is 0,653MeV below the ground state of 29-Cu-64. The decay energy is 1,675MeV - 0,653MeV = 1,022 MeV. I see no contradiction. The whole decay energy is 1,675MeV and would allow also a hidden pair production.

Metastable states of atomic nuclei are special ceses and irregular or unespected decays may occur. Furthermore is the chain of transformations of the nucleus 64 to its stable state per se a bit curious.

The two linked websites do not document any β+-decay of 29-Cu-64.

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=29&n=35

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr:8080/ton/index.html

The atomic number goes down by one suggesting a proton converts to neutron giving off the positron and the neutrinos energy agrees with this. Electron does not appear to interact except externally with the free positron. Internally you could postulate a meson of one down quark and one anti up quark slightly preceding the positron emission. 

@Martin: Sorry, I see no contradiction. The whole decay energy is sufficient for a pair production. The decay starts from an metastable state. What's the problem?

But I shall analyse your objection more precise.

@Martin: I have to recommend your answer. It was the first one I can accept as an argument and not only as a refer to the questionable theories.

To be honest: The nucleus you name is curious. Regrettably I can current not open some of the fact sheets of the websites. Have you found more of such nuclei?

There is consens about: A theory can never be proven but only be falsified.

If a theory is falsified then you have to accept this!

I repeat myself: I don't come up with new and additional theories. I analyse the dacays and interactions of particles and nuclei and recognise the reality on this way. I do not trust in my spiritual imagination like Pauli, Feynman and others that the world can be declared by wishful thinking about it.

Nach unserer bisherigen Erfahrung sind wir zum Vertrauen berechtigt, dass die Natur die Realisierung des mathematisch denkbar Einfachsten ist.  (Albert Einstein)

I would remove the word "mathematisch" because the mathematics serve merly the final delineation of the recognition.

If a theory is falsified then you have to accept this!

And your theory has been falsified, which you cannot accept. Apart from this, you have not falsified any of the ``mainstream'' theories so far.

You have, indeed, insulted them. That is not the same as falsifying.

@F.Leyvraz: You are right insofar: The "consistent and quantitative(!) physical model" of the doctrine is in question as a whole. And therefore it is allowed to ask illicit questions. A strict believer in the theories perceives this as insult.

Do you know the satire "The emperors new clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen? I know a lot of scientist which are the opinion that the physicists are emperors in the sense of this story.

@Thierry: Einstein was more or less the opinion that mathematics is the sufficient proof for a theory. That still holds true till today in physics: The mathematics is mostly the only one proof for theories and the basis for predictions, prophecies and assumptions.

Nevertheless I'm the opinion that the world is the realisation of the very easyliest (in German: des Allereinfachsten). During my analysis of the particles and atomic nuclei I found it confirmed. At the beginning it was without prejudging and I was very surprised about the outcome.

``A strict believer in the theories perceives this as insult.''

By no means. So far, no one has viewed what you said as an insult (except when you start out, groundlessly to accuse experiments of having been faked, just because you are not willing to accept them as a falsification of your pet theories. This quite inquisitorial procedure is indeed revolting). But it has been repeatedly pointed out that your theories have no experimental basis and a certain amount of falsification. But that leaves you quite unmoved. That is what happens to fanatics of all sorts: they will not listen.

@F.Leyvraz: There were some scientists who have not heard: Kopernikus, Gallilei, Bruno have insulted the clergy. Gallilei was locked up, Bruno was burnt. Alfred Wegener has insulted all geologists and he was sent into the ice desert. You see I'm in good company.

Eine Entdeckung besteht darin, etwas zu sehen, was jederman gesehen hat, und sich dabei etwas zu denken, was noch niemand gedacht hat.  Albert von Szent-Györgi

(Freely translated: A discovery is if you see what everyone has seen and thereby to think what no one has thought.)

I'm absolutely sure that the present theories about particles and nuclei are fundamental wrong and that electrons and positrons in its duality are the basic elements of the material world. You have always today the chance to know the truth. Otherwise the whole world will laugh tomorrow about you and your coreligionists.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

``Kopernikus, Gallilei, Bruno have insulted the clergy.''

Actually, they did not: apart from arrogance, you are massively ignorant (arguably Bruno did in fact mock the clergy somewhat, but it was not his most important cotnribution). They did criticise their opponents for not providing valid arguments. You, on the other hand, groundlessly slander those whose experiments are in disagreement with your prejudices. You are much closer to the Inquisition, who did in fact proceed in this way towards Galileo and Copernicus: ``your theories are against common sense (just what you say) and they depend on your personal interpretations of telescopic data''. This is pretty exactly what you say: theories that do not confirm to your notion of common sense are accused of manipulating the experiments, and the experiments are criticised for depending on theories you do not accept (event though these have otherwise been amply confirmed experimentally).

Maybe I'm arrogent especially in this discussion.

The actual problem is the ignorance and negation in physics. It remains on the clergy in the medival: The earth resp. the theories will never move. In view of this attitude you can only have a contemptuous view at this formerly great science.