sci.physics.particle

On Mar 30, 1:22 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:55 am, PD wrote:
>

> > > Lambda ->
>
> > > Decay to Pion- and Proton
>
> > > Pion - decay to Muon and neutrino
>
> > > Muon decay to electron and 2 neutrino
>
> > > The Pion basically decays into an electron and 3 neutrinos.
>
> I'm surprised that you didn't comment on my explanation of beta decay
> which eliminates the need for the W particle and the weak force
> entirely. I believe the best way to unify the forces it to remove as
> many fictitious forces as possible.

I don't know why you think it's fictitious. It's distinct from the
electromagnetic force in several fundamental ways:
1. It occurs at a fundamentally different rate (or interaction
strength). Fermi saw this. You may want to read his Nobel lecture as
well.
2. It has a different range (as in distance).
3. It obeys different selection rules. There are a number of these,
and I'll only mention one: weak interactions violate parity maximally,
while electromagnetic interactions never violate parity. This is also
something you can research in Nobel lectures, which are aimed at lay
public.

Moreover, the radiated neutrino carries different properties than what
you would expect in an electromagnetic interactions. In
electromagnetic interactions, the only non-charged particle that
participates in the interaction is a photon. A photon is
experimentally quite distinct from a neutrino. I suggested you read
Pauli's Nobel lecture. I gather you haven't done that yet.

> Both the strong and weak forces
> are unncessary in my model. This leaves only the magnetic,
> electrostatic and gravity forces. Magnetic forces are electrostatic in
> nature (not just related, but a direct consequence and made out of an
> alignment of electrostatic fields in the aether) and I am still trying
> to fit gravity under the electrostatic force.
>
> > Keep in mind that the production of the first neutrino occurs at a
> > measurable time and distance apart from the production of the other
> > two neutrinos. During the 2 microseconds or so that the muon lives, it
> > travels tens of centimeters, leaving a detectable trail as it goes,
> > before producing the electron and two neutrinos.
>
> Yes, I have seen the pictures of such decays, although it seems we pay
> a lot of attention to particles that hardly exist

Neutrinos are not nearly as ethereal as you make them sound. We've
measured their interaction cross-section and how that changes with
energy, we've measured their spin. We've seen how fast one kind
oscillates into another. We're able to distinguish collisions seen in
detectors that are initiated from neutrinos from those initiated by
others. We regularly *make* neutrino beams and use them in
experiments. We've measured upper limits on their mass, and by virtue
of their oscillation, we also know the mass is not zero.

> and it is unclear to
> me whether these particles are real or just an artifact of the method
> used to detect them which hasn't changed that much since cloud
> chambers (something I could make in my kitchen) were invented.

I recommend you make a field trip to either California or Illinois or
Long Island to see how much particle detectors have changed since
cloud chambers. The labs are open for tours.

> After
> all, these particles are not travelling in a pristine vacuum
> environment as we might we led to believe, but rather in an a atom
> filled environment with the particle colliding and ionizing atoms and
> losing energy all along the way. It leads one to wonder if the
> particle didn't have all it's energy being stripped along its path,
> would it last longer or measure a different mass? Would it even exist?
> I suppose we now have electronic detectors which are vastly different
> than the bubble chamber sort. Do we see different or identical
> behavior depending on the type of detector used?

Yup. That's the point of having independent experiments using
different methods to make these measurements.

>
> I say this because my model would pretty much have to say an electron,
> is an electron, is an electron. A pion and muon would have to be some
> modified energy state of the electron - something like how the same
> set of atoms can combine to form different chemical compounds.

And, believe me, there were plenty of people in the 1950's who felt
the same way. What followed was a series of experiments to determine
whether this was a serious possibility. We have an *enormous* wealth
of experimental data as a result of those experiments that
*unambiguously* show that a pion is not another form of an electron,
and neither is a muon. You have some catching up to do.

>
> You ask good questions, although does the standard model have good
> answers to these same questions. But, I suppose one could always dream
> up a theory that matched observation. There is no shortage of crackpot
> theories that exactly predict all kinds of properties but have nothing
> to do with reality. And so it could be with any standard model theory
> geared to match up with observations.

I think you're missing something here. This is not something that
hinges on a choice of *theory*. It isn't the *theory* that decides
whether a muon is another form of electron or something else. If a
muon were some other kind of electron, then *regardless* of the choice
of theory, there would be certain things that could be tested to see
if this were in fact true. Those tests have been done -- in the form
of well-designed *experiments*. The muon is, from these *experiments*,
completely distinguishable from electrons -- completely independent of
the choice of theory.

I think this is the part that probably mystifies you most.

>
> > Note also that the
> > neutrinos are of two distinct kinds, and they are different in that
> > they produce different reactions in the matter they encounter -- this
> > has been also measured.
>
> Yes, I have noted the differences between electron and muon neutrinos.
> I don't think it is inconceivable that if the neutrino is just an
> isolated wave packet in the aehter, that it may have mutliple modes in
> whch it reacts in collisions. One mode kicks out a clean muon, the
> other kicks out a spray of positrons/electrons. So we see two kinds of
> reactions and we assign them 2 different names, but do we really know
> what particle produced them?

Yes, this has been tested. This is why I suggested you read the Nobel
lectures by the neutrino folks, so you might understand how we know
they just aren't two different flavors of the same thing.

You have some catching up to do. Fortunately, just a few good readings
will probably show you that the picture isn't nearly as open-ended as
you think it is.

> Perhaps neutrinos don't oscillate as has
> been suggested, but merely take on a collision form at random. So from
> all the solar neutrinos (all the same in my book), only a third of
> them are collide in the electron neutrino way, the other third,
> collide in the muon electrino way, and the rest collide in the tau
> way. So all neutrinos accounted for and no oscillation or mass
> required.
>
> So there is the question of why it takes a> muon (which must be an electron plus energy according to you) over two
> > microseconds to dispense with the excess energy. The same question
> > goes for the pion (which is also an electron plus energy in your book)
> > and why it has its own characteristic lifetime before dispensing with
> > one bucket of energy, to produce another electron which later
> > dispenses with two buckets of energy. And then there's the interesting
> > question about why the pion doesn't dispense two buckets of energy
> > first and then one -- why isn't there a particle in between the pion
> > and the final state electron that has only one bucket of extra energy
> > in it.
>
> Yes, very interesting questions. All of these questions present
> themselves and think it is the mark of a good model, that it brings up
> such questions so that they may be subjected to experiment. Now since
> this is the first time I have examined decay in such detail, I could
> only speculate why. Although I would imagine that whatever you came up
> in the standard model could possibly apply just as well since the
> fractional charges play no part in the final result and might as well
> be calculated with integral charge values as my model would require.
>
> What I didn't hear in your response was that anything I was proposing
> was already ruled out experimentally.

Yes, you did. The problem is that your explanation does NOT explain
the multitude of observations that show pretty clearly that it is not
possible to come up with a simple picture of electrons and positrons
and electromagnetism and gravity that does everything that's been
observed. But you're operating with a very limited exposure to what's
been seen experimentally. As a result, you think that any number of
models might possibly account for the very limited set of observations
you're aware of. What you do not understand is that you are not the
first to come up with those ideas (most of your ideas are in fact
50-90 years old) and in fact those ideas have *already* been looked at
via experimental test and ruled out as a result. It is this background
that you're missing. I've given you some starting points to pick up
some of this background that would be accessible at the hobbyist
level.

> I suppose that is the best that
> my model could hope for since it is only at the very "wordy" model
> stage - very much like saying the "Earth goes around the sun rather
> than the sun going around the Earth". Not very detailed, but yet has a
> profound effect on our understanding. So you ask questions which I
> currently cannot answer, but it is possible that these could be
> answered. It would be much different if you pointed out a particle
> that would clearly violate fermion conservation if only integral
> charges and positrons/electrons were the only constituents.
>
> > Oh, and by the way, the "bucket of energy" that you think the
> > neutrino is, also carries angular momentum, and unlike a photon (which
> > is the usual "bucket" of energy), the neutrino has half-integer spin
> > rather than whole-integer spin.
>
> I wouldn't exactly call the neutrino in my book a bucket. Photons
> carry thier energy in widely spread waves generally like waves in the
> sea.

No, they don't. See photoelectric effect, gamma-ray detectors, single-
photon-sensitive photomultipliers, and a number of other experimental
applications where the particle-nature of photons is completely
evident.

> A neutrino would be more like a tiny bullet of a wave. The
> closest comparison would be like the row of biliard balls I had
> explained earlier with the wave transferring through individual
> particles.
>
> Oh, and by the way, the reaction rate
>
> > of the neutrino kind of "bucket of energy" is markedly different than
> > other buckets of energy.
>
> As it should be.
>
> > At this point, it might also help if you read
> > Pauli's 1945 Nobel lecture (which is aimed at the lay public) in which
> > he describes the many ways that a neutrino is markedly different than
> > a bucket of energy. Oh, and you may also want to review the same
> > lectures for the winners of the 1988 and 1995 prizes to see more about
> > neutrinos and how they are different than what you think they are.
>
> > I notice that you haven't looked up the Gell-Mann lecture on quarks
> > and why it's about much more than the structure of protons and
> > neutrons (or other hadrons). You can start here:http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/index.html
> > but in the end, I heartily recommend that you read more than wiki
> > articles. You are attempting to brain surgery after reading a few web
> > articles on first aid, and you seem stubbornly resistant to the notion
> > that there might be more relevant information than what you are
> > finding with a casual perusal of easy sources on the web. There IS
> > better information on the web, but not all of it is free, and you
> > certainly aren't looking in the right places.
>
> Well I did read the one book I had on quarks and lo and behold, it
> gave me the answer on how to directly probe for the positron/electron
> aether with accelerator experiments and such a probe has been
> confirmed with the J/Psi particle.

You might want to see why the properties of the J/psi tell you more
than what you think they say.
What was the book you read? I'd like to suggest one a notch better.

> On the contrary, I totally welcome
> any information you can give me. I enjoy digging into everything you
> say and the detail in which you go to. It has been a fun few days of
> hard digging to provide you with these responses.
>
> Wiki articles definitely have thier limitations, but there were none
> in this instance since I just needed the facts about particle decay
> sequence. I do find that they get to the point and provide a jumping
> point for more detailed searches. I did go back over the list of all
> possible particles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons(yes, I know another wiki
> page)
> Since charge is conserved on all particles, every particle can
> trivially be composed of nothing but positrons/electrons - every
> particle eventually decaying into only these 2 particles. The only
> particle that would have presented any problem would have been the
> neutron which would seem to be an apparent violation of conservation
> of fermions (the only conservation rule required since only positrons/
> electron exist) since a neutron would start with 2 but the products
> have 3 in the proton plus another electron. I have explained this as
> the result of a reaction from a collision with a neutrino which is
> nothing more than an electron/positron pair with a lot of kinetic
> energy behind it. I wonder if the entire reason for the quark theory
> is that nobody could explain the behavior of neutrons with only
> integer charges.

I recommend that you set aside Wiki for a bit and read the Nobel
lectures I recommended to you. Once you've done that, I can recommend
some additional reading that will give you more information yet.
You'll soon understand what constraints we have from experimental data
that are not exposed in your average Wiki article.

You may also want to do some searches on http://scholar.google.com to
get a feel for how much information is available.

>
> My solution is trival and experimentally justifed. The lack of an anti-
> neutrino could be tested.

And has already. Another experimental background matter you need to
freshen up on.

> I believe I had a discussion on this
> previously in which I argued, the decay of fission products is not
> conclusive proof of the anti-neutrino.

That's not the source I had in mind. There are *dozens* of experiments
on this matter.

> It still appears to be up in
> the air whether there is any difference between the neutrino and
> antineutrino - dectectors appear to treat them the same. My model
> would largely rule out the antineutrino. In the energtic environment
> of nearly uncontrolled fission, I would think that this produces
> neutrinos without beta decay. I think it would more convincing if you
> put a vat of tritium next to the SNO detector and see if you saw
> anything.
>