Archive for category Matter
In our paper [1: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1] we anticipate a unified decay equation. It describes all three conventional decays: β- neutron decay, β+ proton decay, and electron capture (EC). These are the decays of the individual proton or neutron.
Here is a handy Mnemonic for remembering all these decays, based on this equation: pie with icing equals nuts with egg below and a dash of vinegar
|Pproton||+||2y + iz(energy)||<=>||nneutron||+||eantielectron or positron||+||Vneutrino|
|pie||with||icing||equals||nuts||with||egg below||and||a dash of vinegar|
Then rearrange this to suit. Remember to invert the matter-antimatter species when you move a particle across the equality (species transfer rule). Note that we use underscore to show antimatter species, and this is the same as the overbar with which you may be more familiar. (We don’t use overbar because it is a confounded symbol used in other contexts such as h-bar. Underscore is a fresh and clearer way to designate antimatter species. It is also a visual reminder that this mechanics needs to be understood from within the NLHV framework of the Cordus theory, i.e. we are not talking about the usual zero-dimensional point particles of quantum mechanics here. Underscore is also easier to print and therefore use.)
The equation as written is focussed on the proton decay, which is β+. It is called beta plus because it gives a positive charge output in the form of the e hence ‘+’.
β+ proton decay: p + 2y => n + e + v
For electron capture just move the e across the equality to the p side and change it to plain ‘e’ instead.
Electron capture (EC): p + e => n + v
For neutron decay, move both the e and v across the equality, changing them to e and v. It is called beta ‘minus’ because the output is the negatively charged electron.
β- neutron decay: n => p + e + v
Remember that electric charge and matter-antimatter species hand are not the same thing. This is an easy area in which to get confused. Electric charge (+/-) refers to the direction in which the discrete forces of the electric field travel, and may be outwards or inwards from the particle. The matter-antimatter species hand (m/m) refers to the handedness of the discrete field, which in the Cordus theory corresponds to the energisation sequence of the field (somewhat like the firing order of a three-cylinder internal combustion engine) which also has two variables.
The mnemonic works for all three conventional decays providing you remember the species transfer rule, but I’m not convinced of the soundness of the dietary advice!
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Asymmetrical neutrino induced decay of nucleons Applied Physics Research, 2015. 7(2): p. 1-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1 or http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0279
Why is the neutron stable inside the atom, but decays when it is free? Our next paper explores what’s happening in the neutron to cause these effects.
It turns out that the answer, at least when viewed through the cordus lens, is to do with the electric field structures of the neutron. Basically, the neutron does not have a full set of these. This is not a problem when it is inside the atom, because the proton has enough to cover for it. The way the proton and neutron bond together sorts this out.
But when the neutron is free of the atom, then its inadequacies start to show. It has a marginal stability, and eventually something comes along that tips it over the edge and it decays.
We also anticipate what it is that causes that instability. We can also explain why the lifetime of the neutron is an exponential distribution. This part of the paper is really basic, perhaps even pedantic, but it’s important to be clear about what an exponential decay means.
That’s all the paper was originally intended to cover. It was supposed to be the simple closing paper in a bracket of three. But, this being a thought-experiment, we always like to push the ideas to the limit.
Doing so suggests that the neutron decay rates are likely to be variable rather than constant. That is an unorthodox outcome, because these rates are generally believed to be strictly constant. Strangely enough, there is a body of empirical testing that has been done over the years that suggests variable rates, though it is a controversial area of physics (see related articles below). So it is a pleasant surprise to see that the thought-experiment has something to contribute to the debate in another indistinct area of physics. So there is a twist at the end of this paper.
Full paper is here at the physics archive vixra: Stability and decay: Mechanisms for stability and initiators of decay in the neutron
- A Brief Review of Nuclear Physics by Michael Fowler, University of Virginia
- Beta decay, Wikipedia
- Live Chart of Nuclides – Table of Nuclides [Shows whole periodic table, with all nuclides. Interactive]
- Three Types of Radioactive Decay
- Half-life heresy: Accelerating radioactive decay, New Scientist
- Solar ghosts may haunt Earth’s radioactive atoms, New Scientist
Quantum mechanics itself cannot explain this problem. This has long been considered a worrying sign of a potential conceptual flaw in QM itself. Hence the ongoing interest in the Cat.
New Scientist has an interesting recent article on Schrodinger’s Cat: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228363.600-quantum-upgrade-removes-need-for-spooky-observer.html
As that though-experiment shows, it’s really hard to make physical sense of quantum mechanics. If QM is true at the sub-microscopic scale –which seems true enough- then why does it not apply to the macroscopic world in which we live? As Schrodinger asks, why does something like a cat not show quantum behaviour? Why is the cat not in a superposition of dead and alive states?
No-one has been able to answer that. Correction, people have been able to answer it, but only by shifting the problem out of the physical domain. Thus one solution, and perhaps the most popular at present, is Everett’s many-worlds-theory, where all the possible outcomes do occur, but each in another universe. As a theory goes it obviously has the major problem of being non-physical. You cannot measure or interact with these other universes. So it is a solution beyond our physical domain: a metaphysical solution. (And just think, who is keeping track of all the information in all these infinity of universes?)
Other than that, there really isn’t much else in conventional physics as an explanation. For some alterantive perspectives, see this vixra list.
The cordus conjecture answers this question very easily, and using a physically natural explanation. It explains what’s happening in the Schrodinger’s Cat situation, and why we don’t see undead cats. It also explains why QM does not scale up to the macroscopic level.
Of course cordus is radical in its own way, in that it disagrees with the conventional QM assumption that particles are zero-dimensional points, and instead proposes they are two-ended structures. While the cordus structure may be strange, it is not metaphysical. So the cordus explanation stays firmly in the physical domain.
Read the full paper here: Why does quantum mechanics not scale up? http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0019v1.pdf . It is pretty much a maths-free explanation, so anyone with a basic education should be able to get something out of it.
- What is Erwin Schrödinger associated with (wiki.answers.com)
- Quantum mechanics difficult to grasp? Too bad (newscientist.com)
- One-Minute Physics: Schrödinger’s Cat [Video] (geeksaresexy.net)
- Physicists seek to quantify macroscopic quantum states (physorg.com)
- Testing the Copenhagen interpretation: a matter of live and dead cats (telegraph.co.uk)
Reality is concrete enough, at least at our level of experience, but what exactly is all that matter made of? What is antimatter (aM) and how does it differ from matter? Why and how do the two annihilate? Why does the universe contain so little antimatter compared to matter? Those questions are difficult to answer with current fundamental physics.
There are some big questions in there. We have been giving them some thought, and have a solution to offer for the basic first question: what exactly is the difference matter and antimatter? Here’s what we have come up with: Mirror images: Matter and Antimatter It describes how the internal structure differs between matter and antimatter, e.g. the electron and positron (antielectron). We create a new concept of handedness, called ma, and an operational definition based onthe energisation sequence of the cordus reactive-ends. This cordus concept permits models to be created differentiating between the electron, proton, and antielectron (positron). This explains why the antielectron is very different to the proton despite the same charge, and why the photon does not have an antiparticle. It also allows the wider integration of bonding and annihilation as manifestations of a single deeper mechanics.