Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Write4U

Thread: How did the universe get to have so many neutrons?

  1. #1 How did the universe get to have so many neutrons? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    We can explain the abundance of hydrogen by the Big Bang creation event creating a large amount of it when the universe started, and then too little time having elapsed for it all to get reacted into other elements by the stars.

    How do we explain the abundance of neutrons? Where do those form? Is it only neutron stars, or can other kinds of stars form them as well?

    For any science novices (by which I mean more novice than me), free neutrons outside of an atom decay into protons by emitting an electron and an electron anti-neutrino with a half life of about 10 minutes. So it seems they basically have to become part of an atom as quick as they form or they won't stay around for long.

    Neutron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    For any science pros, I'm curious about what conditions can lead to the opposite happening: electron capture. How frequently can an atom find itself in a position to do this? Would it serve as an explanation, or are we still stuck with neutron stars?

    Electron capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Apparently thunderstorms can make them.http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i12/e125001]March | 2012 | Ars Technica[/URL]

    http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i12/e125001


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    As you say, free neutrons cannot exist so what you are really asking is, where did all the atoms heavier than helium come from?

    And the answer is, stellar nucleosynthesis.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Timeline of the Big Bang

    excerpt,
    At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).
    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can explain the abundance of hydrogen by the Big Bang creation event creating a large amount of it when the universe started, and then too little time having elapsed for it all to get reacted into other elements by the stars.

    How do we explain the abundance of neutrons? Where do those form? Is it only neutron stars, or can other kinds of stars form them as well?
    Neutrons form all the time in the core of normal stars. It is part of the proton-proton chain from which the sun gets its energy. In the first step, two protons collide to produce a neutron-proton pair (a H2 nucleus) through the emission of a neutrino and a positron. This pair collides with a proton to make a He3 nucleus while releasing energy as a gamma ray photon. Eventually two He3 nuclei combine, shed two protons and becomes a He4 nucleus. (2 protons and 2 neutrons)
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    I've never given much thought to neutrons. Maybe I should start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    kojax,

    How do we explain the abundance of neutrons? Where do those form? Is it only neutron stars, or can other kinds of stars form them as well?
    One might more readily understand stellar fusion theory via the theoretical model of neutron stars. When implosion of a star becomes strong enough some of the stars core will accordingly be compressed into neutrons. The theory is that a stellar plasma of protons and electrons will collapse into neutrons with enough external pressure such as a supernova's inward implosion pressure. To a greater extent, during stellar fusion processes neutrons are created from an input of particles and energy compressing electrons and protons together.

    Once radiated away from nuclei neutrons decay within about 15 minutes in free space, to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Once free within a stellar plasma, neutrons decay almost immediately into protons, electrons, and neutrinos, because of the plasma particulates high-energy interactions.

    As explained by Janus above in greater detail, the creation of new neutrons might be readily understood regarding the hydrogen to helium stellar fusion process: In a simplified hydrogen fusion explanation, from sequential interactions, three hydrogen nuclei (protons) are forced/ fused/compressed/ by collision, come together to make a Helium nucleus. With an additional fusion process, a common helium nuclei will eventually contain 2 protons and 2 neutrons. These combined processes create two new neutrons from two existing protons, two electrons, two neutrinos, and at least two high energy photons. Other stellar nuclear fusion processes similarly create new neutrons.

    THE HYDROGEN FUSION PROCESS
    Last edited by forrest noble; September 29th, 2012 at 04:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    It is good to keep in mind that all matter is comprised of magnetic chains between north and south orientated particles. Most physicist have accepted the doctrine of bhor model as an approximation for modeling the atom although we know it is not actually accurate. You will get in trouble if you try to take the conceptual model of neutrons, electrons, and protons, to understand matter beyond an elementary education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It is good to keep in mind that all matter is comprised of magnetic chains between north and south orientated particles.
    Please explain what you mean here. How is a hydrogen atom composed of magnetic chains between north and south orientated particles, exactly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It is good to keep in mind that all matter is comprised of magnetic chains between north and south orientated particles.
    Where do you get that from? Atomic and molecular bonds are based on electric charges and shared electrons, not magnetism.

    Most physicist have accepted the doctrine of bhor model as an approximation for modeling the atom
    The Bohr model was abandoned decades ago.

    You will get in trouble if you try to take the conceptual model of neutrons, electrons, and protons, to understand matter beyond an elementary education.
    I'm not sere what "conceptual model" you are referring to, but my university and postgraduate education found neutrons, protons and electrons to be very useful.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    This officially makes my list of all time favorite questions I have ever asked. Thanks everyone for responding. I feel like my understanding of the world of nuclear physics just doubled or tripled. It makes so much more sense now.

    I'd never really thought about how all the elementary particles come together to form a bigger picture. I just looked at them like novelties or something I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Most physicist have accepted the doctrine of bhor model as an approximation for modeling the atom
    The Bohr model was abandoned decades ago.
    He acknowledged that it wasn't actually accurate. I don't want to get double confused, trying to tell which responses are reliable, and which rejections of reliability are reliable.

    Then I might hear something that is true and think it is false, and then fail to pick up a piece of information that I need later on to understand the bigger picture because I thought it was false and began ignoring it whenever I saw it. Physics, as far as I've seen it, appears to be very much like mathematics. Each new lesson builds on the last.

    It's important to reject wrong theories so as not to waste your time, but also if you falsely reject something that is correct, you can make it impossible to progress any further. Because, no matter how hard you look, you'll never find another hypothesis to replace it with.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    The Bohr model was abandoned decades ago. because it was found to be incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    The Bohr model was abandoned decades ago. because it was found to be incorrect.
    It's hardly been abandoned, and i suspect most are still being fooled by imaginary things called electrons, invented by Thomson to explain something he did not understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    The Bohr model was abandoned decades ago. because it was found to be incorrect.
    It's hardly been abandoned, and i suspect most are still being fooled by imaginary things called electrons, invented by Thomson to explain something he did not understand.
    What makes you think electrons are imaginary?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    They are imaginary abstract inventions to create a useful model. No one has ever seen an electron or proton. They may really exist, i think they do, as individual particles with mass and magnetic properties, to small to measure, more accurately model as wave probabilities. Part of the problem is some physicist are crying electron every time they find something they do not understand. Your electron is not my electron, it whatever is needed to make their model work. Then, protons had to be invented to balance out their idea of an atom with only negative charge, since it do make sense to only have negative energy.

    If those physicist would have first understood how electricity works they would then be able to make better models.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    They are imaginary abstract inventions to create a useful model. No one has ever seen an electron or proton. They may really exist, i think they do, as individual particles with mass and magnetic properties, to small to measure, more accurately model as wave probabilities. Part of the problem is some physicist are crying electron every time they find something they do not understand. Your electron is not my electron, it whatever is needed to make their model work.
    That doesn't make much sense. On the one hand you say they are imaginary but then you concede they exist with all the expected properties.

    Then, protons had to be invented to balance out their idea of an atom with only negative charge, since it do make sense to only have negative energy
    Yes, and then neutrinos had to be invented to maintain conservation of energy. Some years later they were detected. And so it goes on. That is how science works: making observations and updating or replacing theories based on the evidence.

    If those physicist would have first understood how electricity works they would then be able to make better models.
    And what makes you think they don't know how electricity works? Do you think you know better? Care to tell us how electricity "really" works? (Rather than just throwing around cryptic suggestions that you are so much smarter than everyone else.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    They are imaginary abstract inventions to create a useful model. No one has ever seen an electron or proton. They may really exist, i think they do, as individual particles with mass and magnetic properties, to small to measure, more accurately model as wave probabilities. Part of the problem is some physicist are crying electron every time they find something they do not understand. Your electron is not my electron, it whatever is needed to make their model work.
    That doesn't make much sense. On the one hand you say they are imaginary but then you concede they exist with all the expected properties.)
    Just because they are imaginary does not mean a model cannot be constructed with them and be found to be useful by observing properties of what happens down there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Just because they are imaginary does not mean a model cannot be constructed with them and be found to be useful by observing properties of what happens down there.
    So why do you say they are imaginary?

    If those physicist would have first understood how electricity works they would then be able to make better models.
    And what makes you think they don't know how electricity works? Do you think you know better? Care to tell us how electricity "really" works?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    They are imaginary abstract inventions to create a useful model. No one has ever seen an electron or proton. They may really exist, i think they do, as individual particles with mass and magnetic properties, to small to measure, more accurately model as wave probabilities. Part of the problem is some physicist are crying electron every time they find something they do not understand. Your electron is not my electron, it whatever is needed to make their model work. Then, protons had to be invented to balance out their idea of an atom with only negative charge, since it do make sense to only have negative energy.

    If those physicist would have first understood how electricity works they would then be able to make better models.
    You realize that ordinary TV sets use an electron gun to do what they do, right? (Not the flat screens, but the old traditional TV's).

    The electron gun fires off electrons and then electromagnets guide them to the pixels they're meant to hit. If there was any mistake about the electron's charge or mass, I think they'd miss the pixels and the TV set wouldn't work.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    They are imaginary abstract inventions to create a useful model. No one has ever seen an electron or proton. They may really exist, i think they do, as individual particles with mass and magnetic properties, to small to measure, more accurately model as wave probabilities. Part of the problem is some physicist are crying electron every time they find something they do not understand. Your electron is not my electron, it whatever is needed to make their model work. Then, protons had to be invented to balance out their idea of an atom with only negative charge, since it do make sense to only have negative energy.

    If those physicist would have first understood how electricity works they would then be able to make better models.
    You realize that ordinary TV sets use an electron gun to do what they do, right? (Not the flat screens, but the old traditional TV's).

    The electron gun fires off electrons and then electromagnets guide them to the pixels they're meant to hit. If there was any mistake about the electron's charge or mass, I think they'd miss the pixels and the TV set wouldn't work.
    From a test with a cathode and anode in a vacuum, Thompson not knowing what was creating the field, invented electrons to explain what was flowing between anode and cathode. He succeeded only in giving a name to something observed being there, doesn't mean he had a clue what it is, if he did, he would have defined it. So thus electron lived on being defined as what ever is needed to make the model in question work. Then, protons had to be invented to balance out the electron because of the silly idea of only negative energy in atom could not work.

    I have a hard time finding any physicist who can agree what an electron actually is, and none of them have ever seen one. Maybe if they had started with a fundamental understanding of how electricity works they could have a better model to begin with and they would not be so confused today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Ferchrissakes ttowns, will you stop polluting threads with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are a crank, pure and simple. Coulombs involved in planetary orbits? The moon not rotating about its own axis? Electrons do not exist? Get out of here with this claptrap.

    We have, for instance, used electrons in dual slit experiments to demonstrate how they exhibit particle-wave duality, recording the hits of electrons on the detector, one electron at a time, and seeing them build up an interference pattern.

    We have observed electrons, measured electrons and we use electrons.

    Just shut up your nonsense. It is no wonder you were banned from sciforums and physicsforums "before you even posted anything".

    Your posts have no value at all, except to mislead people who earnestly want to learn. I am sick and tired of cranks coming on here and spouting nonsense.

    Stop your trolling. Get back under your bridge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Ferchrissakes ttowns, will you stop polluting threads with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are a crank, pure and simple. Coulombs involved in planetary orbits? The moon not rotating about its own axis? Electrons do not exist? Get out of here with this claptrap.

    We have, for instance, used electrons in dual slit experiments to demonstrate how they exhibit particle-wave duality, recording the hits of electrons on the detector, one electron at a time, and seeing them build up an interference pattern.

    We have observed electrons, measured electrons and we use electrons.

    Just shut up your nonsense. It is no wonder you were banned from sciforums and physicsforums "before you even posted anything".

    Your posts have no value at all, except to mislead people who earnestly want to learn. I am sick and tired of cranks coming on here and spouting nonsense.

    Stop your trolling. Get back under your bridge.
    WOW guy, you are really out there! It would be a good idea for you to review the rules before partaking:

    4. BASIC GUIDELINES ON POSTING
    "4(b) don't follow members around sections flaming them wherever they go. "


    What evidence do you have to support this claim?: "recording the hits of electrons on the detector, one electron at a time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I'm not following you around, you are spouting nonsense in a lot of the threads that I read.

    For electron interference, where electrons hit the detector one at a time and gradually build up an interference pattern, look at

    http://www.haverford.edu/physics/lov...atterWaves.PDF

    Or

    Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern

    Electron hits:


    I shouldn't have to be wasting my time with you like this, going over stuff we already know with people who, rather than wanting to know what we know, want to deny the knowledge we already have.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; October 3rd, 2012 at 03:14 PM. Reason: typo!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Maybe if they had started with a fundamental understanding of how electricity works they could have a better model to begin with and they would not be so confused today.
    Come on then, if you are such a fricking genius, why don't you tell us what electricity "really" is.

    Otherwise, based on the evidence so far, I will have to conclude that you are totally ignorant of science and are just trolling with stupid comments.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It would be a good idea for you to review the rules before partaking:
    And it would be a good idea for you to learn some basic physics. You could also improve your communication skills.

    What evidence do you have to support this claim?
    What evidence do you have for any of your ridiculous assertions?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So reading about Hydrogen fusion, up to Helium 4, it seems like it must take a lot of energy to make it happen, since the protons emit lots of energy when they form neutrons. Or rather, they emit positrons which will soon find an electron and annihilate.

    How does the process manage to create more energy than it consumes?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post

    I shouldn't have to be wasting my time with you like this, going over stuff we already know with people who, rather than wanting to know what we know, want to deny the knowledge we already have.
    It's good for us science novices to be able to know more about the empirical basis for those theories. Not just because it becomes more credible. Knowing the empirical basis for a theory lets you understand the phenomenon on a more fundamental level.

    Especially with electrons. Knowing how they are observed tells you volumes about their nature. It's like watching CSI on TV, only instead of a crime, it's a law of nature that is being found out by applying special tools.

    Not saying ttown isn't annoying me, though. The question of whether electrons "exist" belongs in its own thread (and wouldn't last long as a thread either). I certainly do resent him hijacking this thread.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm not following you around, you are spouting nonsense in a lot of the threads that I read.

    For electron interference, where electrons hit the detector one at a time and gradually build up an interference pattern, look at

    http://www.haverford.edu/physics/lov...atterWaves.PDF

    Or

    Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern

    Electron hits:


    I shouldn't have to be wasting my time with you like this, going over stuff we already know with people who, rather than wanting to know what we know, want to deny the knowledge we already have.
    Those are not electrons. The author makes the mistake of directly connecting the "firing of an electron at the source" and the subsequent "detection of an electron on the screen". The supposed "electron" purported to be the same "electron" detected by the screen. This is not accurate, the author admits that their is no trajectory that connects the supposed "two electrons".

    What actually happened on the detection screen is some atom on the screen having absorbed enough energy, finally becomes detected. The claim that this was due to a single electron is absurd. The authors image is only a dispersion pattern through a double slit and says nothing about individual electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So reading about Hydrogen fusion, up to Helium 4, it seems like it must take a lot of energy to make it happen, since the protons emit lots of energy when they form neutrons.
    The thing is, it doesn't take energy to make it happen. The fusion process actually releases energy.

    So where does that energy come from? From the difference in the energy holding the hydrogen and helium atoms together; which appears as th some of the mass of the atoms. If we look at the mass of the deuterium atom (this makes things a bit simpler than dealing with hydrogen) it is 2.01410178 atomic mass units. The mass of a helium atom is 4.002602 atomic mass units. A bit of simple arithmetic gives us the difference in mass between 2 deuterium atoms and 1 helium atom: the helium atom is approximately 4.25x10-29kg lighter than the two deuterium atoms. Equivalent to an energy of 4x10-12 joules. Fuse enough atoms and you get a lot of energy!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Those are not electrons.
    Please stop hijacking other people's threads with your ignorant and moronic comments. If you want to discuss your weird ideas and present evidence for them, why not start your own thread? Not that you have any evidence. And apparently are unable to discuss your stupid comments. And you should start it in Trash to save the mods having to move it.

    And you wonder why you have been banned from other science forums? It is pretty obvious.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It is good to keep in mind that all matter is comprised of magnetic chains between north and south orientated particles. Most physicist have accepted the doctrine of bhor model as an approximation for modeling the atom although we know it is not actually accurate. You will get in trouble if you try to take the conceptual model of neutrons, electrons, and protons, to understand matter beyond an elementary education.
    Perhaps you are speaking of "arow of time"here.

    wiki,
    Entropy (arrow of time)

    Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system will increase. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future.
    The names for particles were invented (indicating its basic nature), but the particles were not invented, they exist and have existed since the beginning of time. This is why the science is called physics (knowledge of physical things). Only at Planck scale do we begin to deal with "virtual" particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Those are not electrons.
    Please stop hijacking other people's threads with your ignorant and moronic comments. If you want to discuss your weird ideas and present evidence for them, why not start your own thread? Not that you have any evidence. And apparently are unable to discuss your stupid comments. And you should start it in Trash to save the mods having to move it.

    And you wonder why you have been banned from other science forums? It is pretty obvious.
    I did not do the hijacking, I only responded to the questions that you asked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    The supposed "electron" purported to be the same "electron" detected by the screen. This is not accurate, the author admits that their is no trajectory that connects the supposed "two electrons".
    Ever heard of the sum of all paths? The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics?

    For those readers who are actually interested, this tells us that there is no definite trajectory. I am sure you must have heard this before.

    ttowns explanation of what he thinks occurred belongs in the pseudo-science forum, at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So reading about Hydrogen fusion, up to Helium 4, it seems like it must take a lot of energy to make it happen, since the protons emit lots of energy when they form neutrons.
    The thing is, it doesn't take energy to make it happen. The fusion process actually releases energy.

    So where does that energy come from? From the difference in the energy holding the hydrogen and helium atoms together; which appears as th some of the mass of the atoms. If we look at the mass of the deuterium atom (this makes things a bit simpler than dealing with hydrogen) it is 2.01410178 atomic mass units. The mass of a helium atom is 4.002602 atomic mass units. A bit of simple arithmetic gives us the difference in mass between 2 deuterium atoms and 1 helium atom: the helium atom is approximately 4.25x10-29kg lighter than the two deuterium atoms. Equivalent to an energy of 4x10-12 joules. Fuse enough atoms and you get a lot of energy!
    E = Mc^2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    E = Mc^2
    Exactly.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm not following you around, you are spouting nonsense in a lot of the threads that I read.

    For electron interference, where electrons hit the detector one at a time and gradually build up an interference pattern, look at

    http://www.haverford.edu/physics/lov...atterWaves.PDF

    Or

    Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern

    Electron hits:


    I shouldn't have to be wasting my time with you like this, going over stuff we already know with people who, rather than wanting to know what we know, want to deny the knowledge we already have.
    Those are not electrons. The author makes the mistake of directly connecting the "firing of an electron at the source" and the subsequent "detection of an electron on the screen". The supposed "electron" purported to be the same "electron" detected by the screen. This is not accurate, the author admits that their is no trajectory that connects the supposed "two electrons".

    What actually happened on the detection screen is some atom on the screen having absorbed enough energy, finally becomes detected. The claim that this was due to a single electron is absurd. The authors image is only a dispersion pattern through a double slit and says nothing about individual electrons.
    This is why its called wave/particle duality. This means you cannot measure the photon as a particle while in transit. The probability wave function only measures a probability of where the photon might be. But when it's energetic impact is measured it collapses the wave function and the photon becomes "fixed" as a particle.
    According to the "uncertainty effect" you cannot do both at the same time. You can measure a position in spacetime or you can measure a direction in spacetime. Not both.

    I hope I have this right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I hope I have this right.
    You do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    ttown,

    The illustration clearly shows the energetic impact on the target of single photons. Note that these are fired one at a time and gradually build the wavy pattern. To claim that it takes a "bunch" of photons to excite the target is obviously false.

    And I'll go out on a limb. Perhaps it is impossible for a photon to hit the very same spot of another, as this spacetime coordinate is already occupied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Except in this case they used electrons, rather than photons, and got the same result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Except in this case they used electrons, rather than photons, and got the same result.
    Wow, so even massive particles exhibit the wave function? Interesting!

    What is the difference between photon and electron?

    • Photon is a packet of energy while electron is a mass.

    • The photon does not have a rest mass but an electron has a rest mass.

    • The photon can go at the speed of light, but for an electron, it is theoretically impossible to obtain the speed of light.

    • The photon displays more wave properties whereas the electron displays more particle properties.

    Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/dif...#ixzz28GztXhT0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    The article uses the term electron, not singular photon quanta.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Wow, so even massive particles exhibit the wave function? Interesting!
    Even atoms and molecules exhibit the particle-wave duality. They have performed the double slit experiment with buckyballs!

    http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v71/i4/p319_s1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Ferchrissakes ttowns, will you stop polluting threads with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are a crank, pure and simple. Coulombs involved in planetary orbits? The moon not rotating about its own axis? Electrons do not exist? Get out of here with this claptrap.

    We have, for instance, used electrons in dual slit experiments to demonstrate how they exhibit particle-wave duality, recording the hits of electrons on the detector, one electron at a time, and seeing them build up an interference pattern.

    We have observed electrons, measured electrons and we use electrons.

    Just shut up your nonsense. It is no wonder you were banned from sciforums and physicsforums "before you even posted anything".

    Your posts have no value at all, except to mislead people who earnestly want to learn. I am sick and tired of cranks coming on here and spouting nonsense.

    Stop your trolling. Get back under your bridge.
    WOW guy, you are really out there! It would be a good idea for you to review the rules before partaking:

    4. BASIC GUIDELINES ON POSTING
    "4(b) don't follow members around sections flaming them wherever they go. "


    What evidence do you have to support this claim?: "recording the hits of electrons on the detector, one electron at a time"
    I am afraid you have it wrong there, friend. A lot of us browse all over the forum. It is only the right thing to do to correct obvious nonsense when it appears. Thanks goodness for people like SpeedFreek and Strange for that. You, on the other hand, seems to have been responsible for an inordinate amount of it over the last while. We don't usually ban people this quickly, but I can already see from your general attitude that you are not going to improve. However, I am going to still give you a chance and limit your time off to five days so you can think about it. Give serious consideration to how you want to conduct yourself. I suggest just not coming back though. It would save me the need to make it permanent once you inevitably return to your previous MO.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Buckyballs...oh how I love fractal structures!

    But we are still talking about nano particles, i.e. very, very small. Nevertheless this is truly amazing.

    Which brings up another question. Back to the photon, we know (?) that a photon in transit is a smeared out wavelike energetic field. With massive particles or even molecules (buckyballs) does the same thing happen or do they physically create a wave (disturbance in spacetime) as a result of mass displacement?

    Seems like a massive particle should have a gravitational impact on spacetime and the wavelike action could be due to a rolling gravitational pocket?
    Last edited by Write4U; October 3rd, 2012 at 06:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    ttown,
    I am afraid you have no clue as to the function and workload of moderators and administrators. It is their duty to monitor all posts, remove spam, making sure that the posts are in the correct forum, and making sure that the conversation stays "on-topic". This is a big job and we owe thanks to their dedicated efforts.

    In any case, unless you want to blog on facebook or twitter, knowledge fora such as this are frequented by serious scientists and dismissing their knowledgeable and valuable input is just plain dumb.

    Addressing serious subjects requires a modicum of formality and ad hominems are just never productive. If you have an idea or a question, it is better to posit your "opinion" as a question rather than a statement of fact which you cannot defend. With a question you will receive an answer, with wild and dogged speculation you will most likely receive an appropriate chiding.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Do electrons, protons, neutrons, REALLY exist???
    By rohandesilva in forum Physics
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: October 24th, 2012, 03:34 AM
  2. Neutrons (Stone in Focus)
    By Space Cowboy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 9th, 2012, 06:22 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 18th, 2012, 06:27 PM
  4. Where do neutrons come from?
    By PA Ed in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 24th, 2010, 02:50 PM
  5. Carbon and its UNstable Neutrons
    By giga502 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2009, 04:52 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •