Null Physics anyone?

[Skwinty]

Just curious... does this graph mean anything to you?

Yes, it means that each element's nucleon has a specific binding energy. If you wish to break up the nucleon, you would need to apply an equivalent energy to the nucleon to cause the disintegration. and thus overcome the binding energy.

The context I had in mind when discussing the binding energy in a previous post, was that of the free neutron, which decays via beta decay to a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. In this scenario, no external energy is being applied.

Fermi's theory of the anti-neutrino in the 30's, which had nothing to do with quarks, given that quarks only came into the equation in the late 60's. Fermi"s theory was also initially rejected for publication.
As far as I know, the anti neutrino was detected in the late 50's.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Skwinty:
There are a few textbooks out there that describe the neutron as a combination of a proton and electron. But hopefully they only do this to temporarily simplify things for the reader. .

This being my point. What is wrong with explaining things in simpler terms,rather than complicating things with a bag of quarks.
As,i said, Reactor physicists do not deal in quarks, only particle physicists.
that is why, I think, that Witt is not wrong when he uses the description he does. If he was writing a book about particle physics , then he would be wrong to use that description.

The digital watch analogy is good but the Witt shaman predicts that after 99 will appear after 12 and than when we open the watch up it will contain nothing. Real science predicts that 1 appears after 12 and then the watch actually contains stuff.

I dont follow your reasoning here, given that a digital watch deals with 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 12 or 24 hours.
The date side deals with a max of 31 days, 12 months and the year 99 will appear after 98. The opening of the watch and finding no stuff is also confusing, as no matter what the shaman predicts, on opening the watch he will always find something.

 

[Skwinty]

As for not admitting the errors of the mainstream, I do realize that the mainstream can be wrong and that the experiments and peer reviews make the neccessary corrections. When a physicist is wrong about something, does he get labelled as a crackpot and drummed out of town.
I don't think so. I was hoping to get some sensible reply from Sol, other than
Quote:
Skwinty:Have any experimental results been proved wrong? Of course they have.


Sol:Sure - every experiment in the last 70 years was wrong, and Witt is correct.

 

[Skwinty]

Witt fits all the symptoms of what I consider to be a mild mental illness

Sol, when you make statements like this, are you speaking as a physicist, psychic, physician or an absolutist.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, it means that each element's nucleon has a specific binding energy. If you wish to break up the nucleon, you would need to apply an equivalent energy to the nucleon to cause the disintegration. and thus overcome the binding energy.

A nucleon is a proton or a neutron. Thus all nuclei (except ¹H) have multiple nucleons. The curve is the average binding energy per nucleon as a function of the number of nucleons. If you take the average binding energy (ie the value on the y axis) for a point and multiply it by the nucleon number (ie the value on the x-axis) then you get the total binding energy of that nuclide. Divide this by c² and this is the mass less than the sum of the masses of its constituent nucleons of the nuclide in question.

The context I had in mind when discussing the binding energy in a previous post, was that of the free neutron, which decays via beta decay to a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. In this scenario, no external energy is being applied.

But proton rich nuclei decay by beta⁺ decay without the need to supply any extra energy as well. This was known about in the early 1930's. And makes no sense if the neutron consists of a proton and an electron.

Fermi's theory of the anti-neutrino in the 30's, which had nothing to do with quarks, given that quarks only came into the equation in the late 60's. Fermi"s theory was also initially rejected for publication.
As far as I know, the anti neutrino was detected in the late 50's.

It was Pauli's theory of neutrinos. Fermi merely accepted this. Fermi's theory was rejected by Nature but published in Zeitschrift fur Physik in 1934. I never said it did have anything to do with quarks.

 

[Tubbythin]

This being my point. What is wrong with explaining things in simpler terms,rather than complicating things with a bag of quarks.
As,i said, Reactor physicists do not deal in quarks, only particle physicists.
that is why, I think, that Witt is not wrong when he uses the description he does. If he was writing a book about particle physics , then he would be wrong to use that description.

It makes no sense in the context of nuclear physics either!

 

[Skwinty]

A nucleon is a proton or a neutron. Thus all nuclei (except ¹H) have multiple nucleons. The curve is the average binding energy per nucleon as a function of the number of nucleons. If you take the average binding energy (ie the value on the y axis) for a point and multiply it by the nucleon number (ie the value on the x-axis) then you get the total binding energy of that nuclide. Divide this by c² and this is the mass less than the sum of the masses of its constituent nucleons of the nuclide in question..

Thanks for a concise and clear explanation here.

But proton rich nuclei decay by beta⁺ decay without the need to supply any extra energy as well. This was known about in the early 1930's. And makes no sense if the neutron consists of a proton and an electron..

What happens to the binding energy in this instance?

It was Pauli's theory of neutrinos. Fermi merely accepted this. Fermi's theory was rejected by Nature but published in Zeitschrift fur Physik in 1934. I never said it did have anything to do with quarks.

On what basis did Nature reject this theory and why did Zeitschrift accept the theory?
I didn't imply that you said that, rather just stating that quarks weren't part of this scenario.

 

[Skwinty]

It makes no sense in the context of nuclear physics either!

Why do Reactor physicists not refer to quarks in their calculations?

 

[Tubbythin]

Thanks for a concise and clear explanation here.

No problem.

What happens to the binding energy in this instance?

The excess energy is shared between the positron, neutrino and the daughter nucleus. In much the same way that the excess energy is shared between the electron, anti-neutrino and proton in neutron decay.

On what basis did Nature reject this theory and why did Zeitschrift accept the theory?

Apparently Nature thought it was too speculative. Presumably Zeitschrift disagreed.

I didn't imply that you said that, rather just stating that quarks weren't part of this scenario.

I agree that principles of beta decay can be understood without understanding quarks. But saying the neutron is composed of a proton and an electron does not make sense.

 

[Tubbythin]

Why do Reactor physicists not refer to quarks in their calculations?

Because they don't need to.

 

[Reality Check]

This being my point. What is wrong with explaining things in simpler terms,rather than complicating things with a bag of quarks.
As,i said, Reactor physicists do not deal in quarks, only particle physicists.
that is why, I think, that Witt is not wrong when he uses the description he does. If he was writing a book about particle physics , then he would be wrong to use that description.

It depends on the context. If you are not interested in high energy physics then you can ignore the existence of quarks. This allows simpler calculations. Likewise rocket scientists do not need to use General Relavity to describe orbits around the Earth, etc.
But the fact that you need quarks to describe the results of high energy collisions means that they exist.

If Witt was using it as a "description" then that would be valid. But he is not. He states that a neutron is actually a bound state of a proton and electron. He states that quarks do not exist, e.g. on page 227 of OUU: "It [the Strong Force] has nothing to do with the illusory phantasms called quarks"

I dont follow your reasoning here, given that a digital watch deals with 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 12 or 24 hours.
The date side deals with a max of 31 days, 12 months and the year 99 will appear after 98. The opening of the watch and finding no stuff is also confusing, as no matter what the shaman predicts, on opening the watch he will always find something.

The point is the difference between what conventional science predicts and observes and what Witt's null physics predicts. He would proceed from the assumption that the watch contains nothing using crazy math and predict that the watch will always display 99 after 12. When observations show that 1 appears after 12 then Witt will say this in null mathemetics 99 is really 1.

 

[sol invictus]

As for not admitting the errors of the mainstream, I do realize that the mainstream can be wrong and that the experiments and peer reviews make the neccessary corrections. When a physicist is wrong about something, does he get labelled as a crackpot and drummed out of town.

No, of course not. But that's because when professionals make mistakes it's not something basic. It's an interesting new cutting edge theory which turns out not to work when some new data comes out, or perhaps was incorrectly calculated, or maybe didn't fully take into account some existing piece of experimental data. Other competent and knowledgeable physicists might well have made the same mistake, and they can recognize that. So while mistakes can be embarrassing and sometimes even damaging, a few of them certainly don't end your career, and particularly clever (but ultimately wrong) ideas can even aid it considerably (technicolor is a good example).

But such mistakes have nothing to do with claims like "quarks don't exist" - such statements are as good as moonshine.

 

[sol invictus]

Why do Reactor physicists not refer to quarks in their calculations?

I'm sure they do in some cases. Most of the time they don't need to, because they only need approximate answers, and nucleons are good enough for that.

You see, if Witt were saying I'm going to regard neutrons as a bound state of an electron and a proton, even though I know that's not an exact description, because it will be good enough for my purposes that might be fine. It certainly wouldn't mean that if he were correct physics would all be wrong. But no - Witt says quarks don't exist and the neutron is exactly a bound state of an e- and a p+. If these statements were correct much of physics since 1934 would be wrong.

 

[Skwinty]

I agree that principles of beta decay can be understood without understanding quarks. But saying the neutron is composed of a proton and an electron does not make sense.

Perhaps my reasoning stems from the fact that a free neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. It seems logical to say then, that the neutron, in some form or another, contains the recipe for a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. Yes, this can be explained, correctly, by the different variety of quarks which constitute the neutron, from a particle physics viewpoint.

If one had the capacity to unite a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, would this not result in a neutron? In other words, is this equation reversible n -> p+e+an to p+e+an -> n ?

 

[Skwinty]

You see, if Witt were saying I'm going to regard neutrons as a bound state of an electron and a proton, even though I know that's not an exact description, because it will be good enough for my purposes that might be fine. It certainly wouldn't mean that if he were correct physics would all be wrong. But no - Witt says quarks don't exist and the neutron is exactly a bound state of an e- and a p+. If these statements were correct much of physics since 1934 would be wrong.

I accept your point here. Witts statement is based on poor descriptive technique. He assumes that quarks dont exist because, the quark , as I understand, cannot exist in isolation like a neutron or proton.

 

[Skwinty]

The point is the difference between what conventional science predicts and observes and what Witt's null physics predicts. He would proceed from the assumption that the watch contains nothing using crazy math and predict that the watch will always display 99 after 12. When observations show that 1 appears after 12 then Witt will say this in null mathemetics 99 is really 1.

I apologise if I seem a bit dense here, but, when I look at a digital watch tick over, bearing in mind the analogy that I am primitive and memorising a pattern, I will never see a 12 followed by a 99. How could I maintain my credibility as a shaman and predict that 99 follows 12?

The nothing bit, I think, stems from the fact that the watch, under infinite magnification, would reveal more nothing (empty space) than something.

 

[sol invictus]

Perhaps my reasoning stems from the fact that a free neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. It seems logical to say then, that the neutron, in some form or another, contains the recipe for a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. Yes, this can be explained, correctly, by the different variety of quarks which constitute the neutron, from a particle physics viewpoint.

I tried to point this out before, with no luck. Let me try again: many particles - in fact probably all - have multiple decay modes. Even the neutron can decay into a p+, e-, and anti-neutrino, OR into a p+, e-, anti-neutrino, AND photon, or into the same with other numbers of extra photons. So, does the neutron have photons inside it too? How many?

Other particles have more interesting decays. For example, the pi+ can decay in all of the following ways (v is a neutrino, av an anti neutrino, μ+ an anti muon, etc.):

μ+ ν
μ+ ν γ
e+ ν
e+ ν γ
e+ ν pi0
e+ ν e+ e−
e+ ν ν ν
etc.

So - what is the pi+ made of?

If one had the capacity to unite a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, would this not result in a neutron? In other words, is this equation reversible n -> p+e+an to p+e+an -> n ?

Yes - any reaction can be reversed in principle. For example all of the above in reverse can form a pi+.

 

[sol invictus]

I accept your point here. Witts statement is based on poor descriptive technique. He assumes that quarks dont exist because, the quark , as I understand, cannot exist in isolation like a neutron or proton.

What it really boils down to is success. Nothing more, nothing less. The standard model is incredibly successful - it makes correct and in some cases almost unbelievably precise predictions for the results of every one of the (literally) trillions of experiments that have been carried out to test it. It manages that because it is the current end result of centuries of physical and mathematical research, with tens of thousands of very smart and careful researchers painstakingly trying every alternative they could think of, reluctantly discarding almost all of them, and keeping the tiny fraction that actually matched what we saw in the world.

If Witt can come up with a model which can match the standard model, or even which has the remotest hope of someday matching it, people will pay lots of attention to him. Instead, he makes statements which are inconsistent with even the first and most basic results in particle physics from the 30's. Therefore, he gets labeled a crackpot - which he is, by definition of the term (at least by mine).

By the way, I know of at least one interesting example of a guy - he had a degree in physics, but from years before, and had spent 20 years or so working a blue collar job in a factory. As a hobby he reads the physics archives online, and occasionally writes papers. He wrote one a few years ago which scooped one some very famous physicists were working on - it wasn't quite right, but it had the right idea and most of the correct math. That got their attention.

How did they react? Did they label him a crackpot and try to bury his ideas? No - they flew him out to their university (one of the best in the world) and had him visit for a few months (this was one of the few times he'd ever been on a plane). He turned out to be very smart indeed.

 

[Skwinty]

I tried to point this out before, with no luck. Let me try again: many particles - in fact probably all - have multiple decay modes. Even the neutron can decay into a p+, e-, and anti-neutrino, OR into a p+, e-, anti-neutrino, AND photon, or into the same with other numbers of extra photons. So, does the neutron have photons inside it too? How many?

Other particles have more interesting decays. For example, the pi+ can decay in all of the following ways (v is a neutrino, av an anti neutrino, μ+ an anti muon, etc.):

μ+ ν
μ+ ν γ
e+ ν
e+ ν γ
e+ ν pi0
e+ ν e+ e−
e+ ν ν ν
etc.

So - what is the pi+ made of?



Yes - any reaction can be reversed in principle. For example all of the above in reverse can form a pi+.

I accept your point.
One question though, a photon is not a particle, it is a form of energy.
So if the beta+ decay produces a proton, electron, anti-neutrino and a photon, where does the extra energy come from and doesn't this violate the laws of conservation.

 

[sol invictus]

I accept your point.
One question though, a photon is not a particle, it is a form of energy.
So if the beta+ decay produces a proton, electron, anti-neutrino and a photon, where does the extra energy come from and doesn't this violate the laws of conservation.

The photon is a particle - it just happens to be massless. Until recently it was believed that neutrinos were massless as well.

The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electron, proton, etc. The sum of their masses is less than the mass of the neutron (as we've been discussing). That difference must therefore be carried away in the kinetic energy of the products of the decay - in other words they fly away from where the neutron was rather than just sitting there. Some of that kinetic energy can be converted into photons without violating any laws of physics (well, you have to be careful with angular momentum since the photon is spin 1, but it works out).