[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 21 November 2011 - 00:18, said:

Actually Dave, you were comparing an atomic orbital with a lap of CERN, not metallic and non-metallic atoms; but it's good to see you've stopped digging a gravitational potential well there.

An electron in orbit is a shell, the position of it is the probability density function of that shell, hence it's perfectly acceptable to describe it as a wave. Nature and man have both created magnetic fields to channel and contain them, whereupon they exhibit properties pertaining to mass (as per the calculation of rest mass) but they can still be described as waves within that field - all particles have a subsequent field - Higgs - LHC - present...

I haven't suggested that "it is the mass collision which releases the gamma photon and a [positron]", I only suggested that the proton being more massive is where the comparison ends wrt photons.

Entanglement is very nice, Einstein didn't think so, but it's still irrelevant when the neutrinos apparently change "flavour" (type) not spin whilst in flight between mediums.

Thanks for the clarification on the photon path Jon, I'm keen to understand whether the effect of gravity on the near-vacuum environment actually enhances the zero-point density whereupon the travelling photon could encounter more matter/anti-matter loop collisions in which it results in a 'bent' overall path. Perhaps the same could be true of neutrinos (having their own equivalence in anti-matter) and this is why there is a change of type, and some effect on forward propagation.

Hey Baz,

I beg to differ, I was comparing a free electron cycling in a CERN collider stream to electrons surrounding an atom. Not only do they spin they also vibrate the combination of which specify its "temperature". I susect that as electrons orbit a neucleus the near collision wth neighboring electrons invokes the "temperature" or energy band in which it orbits, add enough energy and one of the electrons changes orbit. As the electron energy or "temperature" decays, it emits a photon and falls back to a prior energy shell.

To me the idea of classic atomc theory tracks with Drs. Fenymen and Dyson as to Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED). The biggest difference in my pov, is that electrons are not there when you measure them; but, are where when you measure them. In essence, it is the ability to measure not the presence or lack there of.

A little of "light reading", suggests that the reaction between a alpha partcle and an electron stream at a given velocity apparently results in one of the protons to decsy either into a antimuon or positron, the result appears to then be a anti-beta decay, which apparently demonstrates a 15min. life. Amazing what you learn if you have a bit of challenge and read up a bit...

[Bazmundo]

Dave, there are no "near collisions" between electrons orbiting in neighbouring energy levels. Hence the explicit reactions (emission/absorption) when one changes it's energy level, again it's not classically mechanic. I challenge you to do more reading.

Chris, the Earth's velocity at surface isn't significant enough for a difference (between latitudes or between us and the neutrino); consider the Earth's velocity around the sun, around the galactic centre, and further through space as the galaxy itself accelerates due to (local) universal expansion. Even these factors aren't significant enough to distort the neutrino experiment's measurements. It's got to be something that the neutrino is doing, that all neutrinos do, or otherwise an imprecise measurement.

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 21 November 2011 - 14:09, said:

Dave

I am slightly confused because I have just read yo ur earlier post which I highlight above. You seem yourself to be making a reference to space time and how it can become distorted depending upon the position of the observer or even their speed in relation to the other. Therefore are you not agreeing with me when I referred to the neutrinos travelling at c in realtion to the earth which isn't?

I wonder how time changes for someone sat on the equator in relation to someone sat at the north or south pole? Are the people who live at the poles' days slightly shorter than for those on the equator?

Hey Chris,

Sorry, my inital post to you has gone missing. I will try to recreate it below:

First and formost, if I did not know better I would suggest you were inserting a bit of humor, As to a day are you referring to a solar insolation day or a revolution of the Earth day?

Secondly, yes I was agreeing with you it would appear that in relation to space-time there may be instances in which our perception is different then predicted. In my research regarding the alpha-positron decay I found an interesting paper in relation to differences in measurement and neutrinos in a inverse beta decay, which I erronously called a anti-beta decay in my prior post. Given the issues with measurements between recombination of neutrinos and actual actions of those particles that I found in a thread on the physics forum, there was a reference to a recent paper here: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20727777 The paper was in relation to a inverse beta decay observed in relation to a atomic reactor experiment. There appeared to be some form of delay between action and measurement.

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 21 November 2011 - 14:33, said:

Dave, there are no "near collisions" between electrons orbiting in neighbouring energy levels. Hence the explicit reactions (emission/absorption) when one changes it's energy level, again it's not classically mechanic. I challenge you to do more reading.

Chris, the Earth's velocity at surface isn't significant enough for a difference (between latitudes or between us and the neutrino); consider the Earth's velocity around the sun, around the galactic centre, and further through space as the galaxy itself accelerates due to (local) universal expansion. Even these factors aren't significant enough to distort the neutrino experiment's measurements. It's got to be something that the neutrino is doing, that all neutrinos do, or otherwise an imprecise measurement.

Hey Baz,

Again I beg to differ, as in an electron cloud, multiple electrons in the same shell may have energy or momentum which in the absence of the electro-static emf would result in collision. It is the difference between momentum and emf which likely plays into the energy level in the outer shell of an atom. It is likely that this same principle is the reason that most elements in the central region of the periodic table are prone to have loosely associated electrons in the outer shell. The energy levels are such that whether they gain or lose 4 electrons matters little at any one point. It is not until you measure it, that sufficient electrons from the electron cloud fill the outer shell in relation to the proton density in the neucleus.

(As to further reading, I am not yet convinced that either wave or string theory are not simply ways to explain away the differences in perception and measure in relation to reality. This no different in my opinion of inventing Dark Energy or Dark Matter to explain away the inability to account for the differences in Einsteinian Physics and observation. It does not mean that the measures are wrong or that the scientists have errored, only that the differences in observation and raw theory are suggesting something different. (I am willing to suggest that it may be possible that the cause for the differences may be one in the same...))

Hence, so far it is not so much as unread, as it is not convinced by what has been read. (Though I have to admit, relying on a 40 yr old description of a solar or alpha particle was pretty lame...)

(PS: As a real world example of the difference between calculation/evidence and actual, the encounter between Jupiter and Shoeman-Levy, we did not have an eye on the scene nor nearby to actually record the event. We had a good idea of the trajectory, rate of approach, and a single sample to suggest a planet wide atmospheric density. We could estimate the impact strength, and time; but, without mesurement it is a rough approximation at best. I am satisfied that there was an impact and it was both spectacular and enormous, I am not convinced it was massive enough to necessarily have destroyed the Earth. Yes, extinguished most life and created a great crater; but to do more damage then the 4bya Orphieus collision, unlikely... The composition wrt physical differences in impact targets would have probably have netted different effects.)

[Bazmundo]

ldavidcooke, on 21 November 2011 - 15:20, said:

Hey Baz,

Again I beg to differ, as in an electron cloud, multiple electrons in the same shell may have energy or momentum which in the absence of the electro-static emf would result in collision. It is the difference between momentum and emf which likely plays into the energy level in the outer shell of an atom. It is likely that this same principle is the reason that most elements in the central region of the periodic table are prone to have loosely associated electrons in the outer shell. The energy levels are such that whether they gain or lose 4 electrons matters little at any one point. It is not until you measure it, that sufficient electrons from the electron cloud fill the outer shell in relation to the proton density in the neucleus.

(As to further reading, I am not yet convinced that either wave or string theory are not simply ways to explain away the differences in perception and measure in relation to reality. This no different in my opinion of inventing Dark Energy or Dark Matter to explain away the inability to account for the differences in Einsteinian Physics and observation. It does not mean that the measures are wrong or that the scientists have errored, only that the differences in observation and raw theory is suggesting something different. (I am willing to suggest that it may be possible that the cause for the differences may be one in the same...))

Hence, so far it is not so much as unread, as it is not convinced by what has been read. (Though I have to admit, relying on a 40 yr old description of a solar or alpha particle was pretty lame...)

Same shell level or different shell levels? Which is it Dave. Shell energy levels, vacant spaces, difference between bonded energy and ionisation by loss of outer electrons - all dictated by proton number and charge. Remember, in an atomic orbital they aren't particles so there aren't any collisions. Perhaps we could find a way to make drivers on motorways into waveforms....

I wasn't suggesting you read further into Dark "anything" (although "Flow" is a recommended one for anyone that dislikes big banging). I was suggesting you re-read what you already have, as you've missed the head of the nail a few times in this thread. I'm not trying to be defamatory Dave, but if you misquote theories then I'm going to have to ask you to try again, if only for the clarity required for others to understand the issue in question wrt with the neutrino results. I had this driven home to me by qualified academics over a number of years, it's not easy; as much as I resented it at the time, in hindsight I see why it was necessary as it is a particularly complex (and hole-riddled) set of theorems. Please be careful with it...

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 21 November 2011 - 15:41, said:

Same shell level or different shell levels? Which is it Dave. Shell energy levels, vacant spaces, difference between bonded energy and ionisation by loss of outer electrons - all dictated by proton number and charge. Remember, in an atomic orbital they aren't particles so there aren't any collisions. Perhaps we could find a way to make drivers on motorways into waveforms....

I wasn't suggesting you read further into Dark "anything" (although "Flow" is a recommended one for anyone that dislikes big banging). I was suggesting you re-read what you already have, as you've missed the head of the nail a few times in this thread. I'm not trying to be defamatory Dave, but if you misquote theories then I'm going to have to ask you to try again, if only for the clarity required for others to understand the issue in question wrt with the neutrino results. I had this driven home to me by qualified academics over a number of years, it's not easy; as much as I resented it at the time, in hindsight I see why it was necessary as it is a particularly complex (and hole-riddled) set of theorems. Please be careful with it...

Hey Baz,

Lets start with same shell levels with different spins, as to the electrons there-in lies our prime disagreement, electrons are particles in my book and only waves in yours... If we cannot agree on this then we will continue to share differences... Which is fine, only that one does not make the other wrong only different... Both can describe the same phenomena, it s just in our perception and description of the phenomena that we differ. As long as we can agree on an acceptable margin of error the rest is just noise...

[Bazmundo]

"..only waves in yours..." - twice now I've stated that "in an atomic orbital" electrons behave as waves, you can't consider them classically in this context and nor can you find them because to calculate their position requires that they are considered to be wave-like - hence Schrodinger's equation. The only support for a particle-like nature is the response to the photoelectric effect, which also serves to suggest there are definite quanta of energy or photons, which are particle-like and again they have to be considered as waves in calculation of such. Outside of that, in the context of a beam and/or current, electrons can be considered as particles in collisions and waves in diffraction. You can't describe the electrons radius classically either, owing to quantum effects. They can't collide in an orbital because of their charge or magnetic dipole moment, but do pair off due to opposing spins. The Auger effect of excitation out of inner core shells is actually done by high-energy x-ray photons, hence again no electron collision; though a transient electron can fill a vacant inner shell position and by the same effect emit an electron. Valence electrons aren't always in the outer shell either.

This is the basis of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chemistry and electromagnetism. It's in the literature, I'm not wrong nor 'different'. Sorry.

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 22 November 2011 - 00:16, said:

"..only waves in yours..." - twice now I've stated that "in an atomic orbital" electrons behave as waves, you can't consider them classically in this context and nor can you find them because to calculate their position requires that they are considered to be wave-like - hence Schrodinger's equation. The only support for a particle-like nature is the response to the photoelectric effect, which also serves to suggest there are definite quanta of energy or photons, which are particle-like and again they have to be considered as waves in calculation of such. Outside of that, in the context of a beam and/or current, electrons can be considered as particles in collisions and waves in diffraction. You can't describe the electrons radius classically either, owing to quantum effects. They can't collide in an orbital because of their charge or magnetic dipole moment, but do pair off due to opposing spins. The Auger effect of excitation out of inner core shells is actually done by high-energy x-ray photons, hence again no electron collision; though a transient electron can fill a vacant inner shell position and by the same effect emit an electron. Valence electrons aren't always in the outer shell either.

This is the basis of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chemistry and electromagnetism. It's in the literature, I'm not wrong nor 'different'. Sorry.

Hey Baz,

A wave cannot have a spin. Detection of a vibrating, spinning particle will exhibit wave like characteristics, period.

As to a collision you are correct that the direction of spin in relation to its partner will define the EM dipole thus allowing pairing in a similar orbit, seperated by its electro-static charge. Bombard the outer shell of a non-metalic atom with a alpha beam and you will not achieve the same effect as with the shell of a metalic molecule, ever wonder why?

[Bazmundo]

ldavidcooke, on 22 November 2011 - 01:24, said:

A wave cannot have a spin. Detection of a vibrating, spinning particle will exhibit wave like characteristics, period.

There is no physical spin, it's a term for the aspect of the magnetic dipole which a waveform can have quite happily. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the dipole orientation causes the commonly seen track curvature in detectors, owing to the containing magnetic field also. And vibrating?

Quote

As to a collision you are correct that the direction of spin in relation to its partner will define the EM dipole thus allowing pairing in a similar orbit, seperated by its electro-static charge. Bombard the outer shell of a non-metalic atom with a alpha beam and you will not achieve the same effect as with the shell of a metalic molecule, ever wonder why?

Electrovalency, but I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the inner shell? The "valence shell" is a misunderstood term, as valence electrons are determined by their energy and those furthest from the nucleus have least (see subshells then atomic orbitals). Inner shell electrons when lost provoke outer shell electrons to drop in, and non-metallic atoms are have more positive electron affinity (higher electronegativity). Valence electrons don't necessarily come from the outer shell.

Are we going to discuss neutrinos, clarify quantum mechanics or are you going to play a game of one-upmanship with loaded questions? I can't be bothered continuing with this thread. Sorry to anyone with genuine questions about neutrinos and 'c'.

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 22 November 2011 - 03:09, said:

There is no physical spin, it's a term for the aspect of the magnetic dipole which a waveform can have quite happily. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the dipole orientation causes the commonly seen track curvature in detectors, owing to the containing magnetic field also. And vibrating?


Electrovalency, but I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the inner shell? The "valence shell" is a misunderstood term, as valence electrons are determined by their energy and those furthest from the nucleus have least (see subshells then atomic orbitals). Inner shell electrons when lost provoke outer shell electrons to drop in, and non-metallic atoms are have more positive electron affinity (higher electronegativity). Valence electrons don't necessarily come from the outer shell.

Are we going to discuss neutrinos, clarify quantum mechanics or are you going to play a game of one-upmanship with loaded questions? I can't be bothered continuing with this thread. Sorry to anyone with genuine questions about neutrinos and 'c'.

Hey Baz,

Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot. As to your pov and mine, orbitals are mainly a mathematical function. As to energy/orbital shells I could go into the photon jump states of hydrogen models; however, that does not advance the thread as you say. And yes the valence shell or in the case of metalic molecules, the presence of the free electron cloud is the main reason for the differences.

As to neutrinos, I am still unsure of why this was choosen for the experiment. We know there is an issue with inverse beta decay. The Cowan-Reins was based on the generation of anti-neutrinos in a nuclear reactor via beta decay and the reaction with protons produces neutrons and positrons, where the positron is annihilated creating gama rays. The gama ray count defines the presence of neutrinos. Other detectors check for Cherenkov radiation.

For the Opera experiment it appears they are employing Cherenkov detectors underground. The distances have been measured with GPS units between the source and detector to within 20cm. If I have done my math correct apoarently they neutrinos arrived at the detectors, 60X10^-9 seconds or 18 meters ahead of schedule.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

Hmmm, the latest from the ICARUS Team appears to suggest that the relativistic speed could not have been violated due to that lack of loss of energy in the neutrinos. That being said we appear to hear the beginnings of issues wrt CP and CPT symmetry or Plank Mass issues whether on the part of the detector or the detectable particle interaction and gama emission.

I suspect it may be time to retrive Occums Razor, a house of cards is nothing more then a house of cards, unless you can first confirm the foundation. I suspect that there could be a folding of dimensions; but, with such a slight mass to meet the criteria wrt CPT symmetry and the necessity for such high energies to maintain CP symmetry, I am beginning to suspect a fundamental issue...

[Flatlander]

Hmm. The neutrino can't be going faster than light, because our theory that says it can't also says that if it does it should lose energy? I don't buy that argument...


I don't believe the neutrinos are FTL though, but I suspect it will take a long time for anyone to figure out why. The supernova neutrinos behaved normally over a much much larger distance so my guess is that it is the experiment rather than theory.