PDA

View Full Version : Question on the law of conservation of energy/matter



m74z00219
2009-Aug-21, 12:39 AM
Hi everyone.

I understand the theory perfectly well, but I was wondering: are there ways to test for the contrary?

For instance, it is hypothesized that gravity is weak because it leaks into our universe. Perhaps it further leaks into another universe? I don't know if this makes any sense!:whistle:

Is it possible energy could be leaking in or out of our universe? Being able to detect something like this would lend further credence to multiverse theory. Perhaps there the law doesn't apply to our universe, but to all multiverses?

Thanks,
m74

Perhaps someone has a bit of knowledge that will make sense out the above ramblings. :)

RussT
2009-Aug-21, 10:38 AM
Hi everyone.

I understand the theory perfectly well, but I was wondering: are there ways to test for the contrary?

For instance, it is hypothesized that gravity is weak because it leaks into our universe. Perhaps it further leaks into another universe? I don't know if this makes any sense!:whistle:

Is it possible energy could be leaking in or out of our universe? Being able to detect something like this would lend further credence to multiverse theory. Perhaps there the law doesn't apply to our universe, but to all multiverses?

Thanks,
m74

Perhaps someone has a bit of knowledge that will make sense out the above ramblings. :)

Does anyone think that SMBH's might be able to be shown to fit this scenario?

Mainstream has known since 1934 that Energy Conservation is actually a problem.

It's just that NO ONE has ever known what to do about it!

http://www.bautforum.com/1290008-post78.html



It seems to me to be pretty darn important!

Take neutrinos and the law of conservation of energy and the period 1930s to 1957. I'm sure you all agree (don't you? if not, say so!) that the relevant beta decays most certainly showed, in any number of repeated experiments, that energy was not being conserved (nor was momentum), and nothing has changed since - if you do the experiments today, in your own labs, energy appears to be not conserved (nor does momentum). Yet few, if any, working physicists^ seriously regarded the law of conservation of energy as not universally true/applicable/valid/{insert your own word here}.

But why?

The experimental results were completely convincing - in terms of what was known at the time, 'conservation of energy' could be ruled out at {insert some very large number here} sigmas, period.

tusenfem
2009-Aug-21, 10:43 AM
AFAIK there is no such law as the "conservation of matter." The annihilation of a particle and its antiparticle is a clear evidence for that.

Methinks, the whole title of this thread is a misnomer.

slang
2009-Aug-21, 11:04 AM
Mainstream has known since 1934 that Energy Conservation is actually a problem.

It's just that NO ONE has ever known what to do about it!

Why do you follow that up with a quote from Nereid that says something completely different?

Ken G
2009-Aug-21, 12:37 PM
I think by "energy/matter", the OPer probably just meant what is normally called mass-energy, which isn't really any different from just saying energy, but it underscores the equivalence there. In answer, I"d say that everything it always possible-- science is not religion, it does not assert "energy must be conserved", it asserts, "energy is conserved (locally, RussT) in everything we've ever seen, so we make this a unifying principle of our theories until such a time as we may find it is not the case and need better theories." The point is, we don't need to argue it has to be true just to make it a theory, we only need to argue we have no reason to say it isn't true. Science doesn't assert truths, it looks for them. If you can actually find evidence energy is not being conserved (in a local process), then you can work on the issue of why not. It's fine to anticipate such a finding, but you may generate little interest if most are skeptical that it will ever be relevant.

m74z00219
2009-Aug-21, 03:20 PM
AFAIK there is no such law as the "conservation of matter." The annihilation of a particle and its antiparticle is a clear evidence for that.

Methinks, the whole title of this thread is a misnomer.


I disagree. Photons and neutrinos are both considered "matter". But like KenG says, I was referring to the energy content of matter (the equivalence).

Oh, beautifully worded response KenG.
The beautiful thing about science is that it's "self-corrective". in order for it to progress, we rely on previous theories. So, even if a theory is not 100% accurate, the flaws will be revealed by disagreement with future science.



m74

Ken G
2009-Aug-21, 03:42 PM
The beautiful thing about science is that it's "self-corrective". in order for it to progress, we rely on previous theories. So, even if a theory is not 100% accurate, the flaws will be revealed by disagreement with future science.
Yes, that is its most important feature. And questions like yours help to keep it on that track, as we must never mistake what we've learned about the universe for what we know about the universe. It just helps to have some experimental surprise to motivate the question, which generates interest in a hurry. Before that, it's more like what mathematicians do, where they just wonder, "what happens, just for fun, if we replace core principle A with some less restrictive core principle B"?

korjik
2009-Aug-21, 04:32 PM
I disagree. Photons and neutrinos are both considered "matter". But like KenG says, I was referring to the energy content of matter (the equivalence).

Oh, beautifully worded response KenG.
The beautiful thing about science is that it's "self-corrective". in order for it to progress, we rely on previous theories. So, even if a theory is not 100% accurate, the flaws will be revealed by disagreement with future science.



m74

IIRC, matter implys a non zero rest mass. In that case, photons arent matter.

trinitree88
2009-Aug-21, 04:46 PM
IIRC, matter implys a non zero rest mass. In that case, photons arent matter.

korjik. Also in that case, neither are neutrinos. Putative "masses" of neutrinos are upper bounds, and the zero rest mass neutrino is not inconsistent with results yet, according to the Particle Data Group.
This is important, because photons have zero lepton number, and can be created nilly-willy as you so please, and annihilated equally as nilly willy. Neutrinos and their brethren however must conserve lepton number.
The observed oscillations of neutrinos always include matter path lengths in the experiments, and can equally be interpreted as frequency/energy drops during the MSW-type oscillation process with superimposed Eigenstates. This should show up as a transfer of momentum and heat in the nanoscale world.
This is reactor testable. pete

korjik
2009-Aug-21, 05:22 PM
korjik. Also in that case, neither are neutrinos. Putative "masses" of neutrinos are upper bounds, and the zero rest mass neutrino is not inconsistent with results yet, according to the Particle Data Group.
This is important, because photons have zero lepton number, and can be created nilly-willy as you so please, and annihilated equally as nilly willy. Neutrinos and their brethren however must conserve lepton number.
The observed oscillations of neutrinos always include matter path lengths in the experiments, and can equally be interpreted as frequency/energy drops during the MSW-type oscillation process with superimposed Eigenstates. This should show up as a transfer of momentum and heat in the nanoscale world.
This is reactor testable. pete

I thought oscillations required a rest mass and that had settled the issue. I could be wrong

:)

Ken G
2009-Aug-21, 07:14 PM
I thought oscillations required a rest mass and that had settled the issue. I could be wrong
I'm not a neutrino expert, but my understanding is, oscillations do require that there are neutrino mass eigenstates with nonzero mass, but there could still be one mass eigenstate with zero mass. This shows how slippery is the concept of "matter", because you can have a matter particle that can be observed to have a nonzero rest mass, or to have a zero rest mass, and you don't know which you are going to get until you do the experiment.

korjik
2009-Aug-21, 07:37 PM
I'm not a neutrino expert, but my understanding is, oscillations do require that there are neutrino mass eigenstates with nonzero mass, but there could still be one mass eigenstate with zero mass. This shows how slippery is the concept of "matter", because you can have a matter particle that can be observed to have a nonzero rest mass, or to have a zero rest mass, and you don't know which you are going to get until you do the experiment.

Is there more than three eigenstates? Seems to me that there would be a problem oscillating out of a zero rest mass state into a massed one. On the other hand, the rest mass of a neutrino may be so small that if there is a problem it is such a small energy barrier that it wouldnt be noticeable.

Of course, we are waaaaay out of my knowledge base, so I prolly dont have a clue what I am talking about

:)

Ken G
2009-Aug-21, 09:15 PM
Is there more than three eigenstates? Seems to me that there would be a problem oscillating out of a zero rest mass state into a massed one. On the other hand, the rest mass of a neutrino may be so small that if there is a problem it is such a small energy barrier that it wouldnt be noticeable.
I think that's the case, all these neutrinos have much more kinetic energy than their rest mass, so you hardly notice the differences in rest mass. What you do notice is the change in the "flavor" of the neutrino, and my (flimsy) understanding is, if the neutrino is created in a joint energy and flavor eigenstate, it cannot be in a rest-mass eigenstate (because the rest-mass eigenstates are not the same as the rest-mass eigenstates, another strange wrinkle in the notion of a "particle"), so it also cannot be in a kinetic energy eigenstate (the actual energy is divided between rest mass and kinetic energy). Since it's not in a kinetic energy eigenstate, it also won't be in a momentum eigenstate, and it's different mass components will propagate at different speeds.

Thus over time, the most advanced part of the wave packet will tend to look more like the eigenstate with the lowest rest mass, which is not a flavor eigenstate-- we no longer know the flavor. Also, the least advanced part of the wave packet will tend to look more and more like an eigenstate of the highest rest mass, so we won't know the flavor there either. This appearance of ambiguity in the flavor will allow us, if we measure the flavor, to get any answer, and that is called "neutrino oscillation".

m74z00219
2009-Aug-21, 10:13 PM
IIRC, matter implys a non zero rest mass. In that case, photons arent matter.

I've had many interesting conversations about the definition of matter. It seems that many prescribe to the notion that all of the particles that make up the standard model are matter.

It is common to think of mass as a measure of the amount of "stuff" in particular volume. However, this isn't quite true as the mass of this stuff is dependent on all of the energy within it (apart from inherent mass energy of massive fundamental particles). So, mass is actually a measure of the amount of matter and energy in the a considered volume.

It'll never happen, but I think science needs a third word. It needs a word to delineate a quantity of matter from a quantity of matter and energy. Mass to quantify a volume containing matter and energy and "stuff" to quantify matter.

For example, a vibrating water molecule would have more mass than a stationary water molecule. Though, each has the same amount of stuff (fundamental particles). That energy can be separated from that vibrating molecule as photons (matter). This is E=mc^2 or more accurately:

delta(E)/c^2 = delta(m)

The difference in mass of the vibrating water molecule as compared to the non-vibrating one will be very small, but it's there.


Sorry for the ramble, it's just a very interesting subject.

M74

RussT
2009-Aug-22, 10:02 AM
I think by "energy/matter", the OPer probably just meant what is normally called mass-energy, which isn't really any different from just saying energy, but it underscores the equivalence there. In answer, I"d say that everything it always possible-- science is not religion, it does not assert "energy must be conserved", it asserts, "energy is conserved (locally, RussT) in everything we've ever seen, so we make this a unifying principle of our theories until such a time as we may find it is not the case and need better theories." The point is, we don't need to argue it has to be true just to make it a theory, we only need to argue we have no reason to say it isn't true. Science doesn't assert truths, it looks for them. If you can actually find evidence energy is not being conserved (in a local process), then you can work on the issue of why not. It's fine to anticipate such a finding, but you may generate little interest if most are skeptical that it will ever be relevant. My bold



GR considers almost nothing "globally", it is a local theory. GR only knows what "local" energy is, and does not know what "global" energy is. That's why energy is not conserved in GR. But energy is likely a coordinate entity anyway, and so not as fundamentally important as a classical picture might suggest. In quantum field theory, there is no energy at all, so far as I understand it. There is only the field. RussT's bold

And how can you get any more "Local" than Beta Decay on Earth?



If you can actually find evidence energy is not being conserved (in a local process), then you can work on the issue of why not.

Geezzzzz, Nereid's quote doesn't say anything at all about 'anticipating', it specifically says the the Non-conservation was and is a known major issue, that like I stated, No One knows what to do about.

So, why are you making up something philosophical to still just go on 'Ignoring' the issue?

slang
2009-Aug-22, 10:29 AM
Geezzzzz, Nereid's quote doesn't say anything at all about 'anticipating', it specifically says the the Non-conservation was and is a known major issue, that like I stated, No One knows what to do about.

That is not what she said at all. I suggest you read it again, more carefully. Perhaps even investigate why certain years were mentioned.

RussT
2009-Aug-22, 10:56 AM
That is not what she said at all. I suggest you read it again, more carefully. Perhaps even investigate why certain years were mentioned.

I have read the whole thing numerous times!

Don't just tell me that is NOT what was said........If you think it/she says something different than what I am saying........You show ME.

RussT
2009-Aug-22, 11:22 AM
Hi everyone.

I understand the theory perfectly well, but I was wondering: are there ways to test for the contrary?

For instance, it is hypothesized that gravity is weak because it leaks into our universe. Perhaps it further leaks into another universe? I don't know if this makes any sense!:whistle:

Is it possible energy could be leaking in or out of our universe? Being able to detect something like this would lend further credence to multiverse theory. Perhaps there the law doesn't apply to our universe, but to all multiverses?

Thanks,
m74

Perhaps someone has a bit of knowledge that will make sense out the above ramblings. :)

Actually m74 I should apologize, because this question is absolutely awesome, and IMHO, holds the very key to our "Real" Universe(s) workings!!!

All the Laws Of Physics would be changed if it could be shown that the Universe(s) works as an "Open System" VS a "Closed System".

So, the Conservation Laws do come into play (I just wanted to show that there is evidence of a "Real" problem"), BUT until the Macro part is fleshed out
to show how it is working, starting at the QM level is impossible to fathom...I mean there is no way to know how to even start, until the Macro is understood........which is actually, the major problem with the current scenario....

SO, I will just ask the orginal question that I did in my first post, and try to get to the real issues you were talking about with the "Leaking of Energy".

Does anyone think that SMBH's can be shown to be the 'Mechanism" for the "Leaking"???

slang
2009-Aug-22, 11:57 AM
I have read the whole thing numerous times!

Don't just tell me that is NOT what was said........If you think it/she says something different than what I am saying........You show ME.

I don't think she said something different than you, I know she says something different than you. But let's go over the relevant lines.


Take neutrinos and the law of conservation of energy and the period 1930s to 1957. [...] the relevant beta decays most certainly showed, in any number of repeated experiments, that energy was not being conserved (nor was momentum), and nothing has changed since - if you do the experiments today, in your own labs, energy appears to be not conserved (nor does momentum).

Nereid says that the experiments done in the years mentioned showed that energy was not conserved. If you were to do those exact same experiments now, you would get the same outcome. Now why would that be? What was discovered in 1957? What discovery from that year showed that energy was being conserved after all, even though that mechanism did not show up in the earlier experiments (even if you were to repeat those exact same experiments today)? Do you know what the word "appears" means?

Now where does she say that "the Non-conservation was and is a known major issue"?

Ken G
2009-Aug-22, 08:06 PM
Yes slang is right and RussT is wrong. Nereid was simply assuming that everyone knows that neutrinos restored the conservation of energy in beta decays, but if anyone does not know that, her comments would seem to suggest (if one reads past the date 1957) that beta decays are still thought to violate energy conservation. It's a cautionary tale-- even if you think it is perfectly obvious what you are saying, if your words can possibly be taken out of context and the meaning altered, then they will be, so you never know what you are going to have to spell out to avoid being misappropriated. Nothing is more difficult than communication.

mugaliens
2009-Aug-22, 10:23 PM
AFAIK there is no such law as the "conservation of matter." The annihilation of a particle and its antiparticle is a clear evidence for that.

Methinks, the whole title of this thread is a misnomer.

Agreed. I think he may have been referring to the conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), which states that the total energy in any isolated system remains constant. We know from E=MC^2 that mass is merely a form of bound energy, a fact confirmed in countless experiments.

m74z00219
2009-Aug-22, 10:37 PM
Agreed. I think he may have been referring to the conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), which states that the total energy in any isolated system remains constant. We know from E=MC^2 that mass is merely a form of bound energy, a fact confirmed in countless experiments.

Quite right, as per my previous post, that is what I meant. I guess it really should just be called the "principle of conservation of energy" where matter is simply another form of energy.

To be more clear, what I meant (to use tusenfem's situation) is that the sum of the energy and matter-energy are constant in an isolated system. If a stationary positron annihilates a stationary electron, then they will convert to two or three photons whose matter-energy sums to the same amount as the matter-energy before the annihilation.

My reason for calling it matter-energy instead of mass-energy should be apparent by my previous post.

m74

slang
2009-Aug-23, 12:03 AM
Yes slang is right and RussT is wrong. Nereid was simply assuming that everyone knows that neutrinos restored the conservation of energy in beta decays, but if anyone does not know that, her comments would seem to suggest (if one reads past the date 1957) that beta decays are still thought to violate energy conservation.

The interesting part is of course that she mentioned neutrinos as the second word in that quote. Even a newbie like me found in seconds that they were discovered in 1957, and a few more seconds what that discovery meant for the conservation of energy.


It's a cautionary tale-- even if you think it is perfectly obvious what you are saying, if your words can possibly be taken out of context and the meaning altered, then they will be, so you never know what you are going to have to spell out to avoid being misappropriated. Nothing is more difficult than communication.

In fairness, I think the quote in question (yay alliteration) was a little bit vague on purpose, as I remember the thread it was in. Not that that matters much.

Yeah, it seems to be a matter of someone pruning through texts in the hope of finding something that seems to support their (wrong) notions, followed by a quick jotting down along with the name of who said it. Maybe even in the hope of "catching" a scientist saying something that "ought to be hushed up". This modus operandi is very common amongst creationists, see The Quote Mine Project (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html) for those new to that concept. I don't think there is a defense against it... except vigilance.

RussT
2009-Aug-23, 07:30 AM
Agreed. I think he may have been referring to the conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), which states that the total energy in any isolated system remains constant. We know from E=MC^2 that mass is merely a form of bound energy, a fact confirmed in countless experiments.

:lol:

Your newest ? in Q&A...and from the same link you have above.



Quantum theory estimates of the vacuum energy density vary by 10120 from that given by the cosmological constant. The current thinking is that quantum mechanic's zero-point field energy densities do not conserve the total energy of the universe (aka, it leaks), Could this arise as a result of the universe being so much larger than the observable universe?

Is this disparity the source of "dark energy" behind an accelerating universe?

And there is that pesky "leakage" term again...

and to give a real response to m74's original querry...

Hint: the energy/ZPE/Neutrinos (at their lowest energy, 2.73k /non-charged electrons/positrons) is coming "IN"/Leaking 'through' the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters (You know, where there is NO Baryonic Matter) and is an (E-R Bridge to SMBH in that other Multi-verse) and going "OUT" 'straight through' the SMBH's in the cores of our galaxies to a Multi-verse below.

RussT
2009-Aug-23, 07:48 AM
Yes slang is right and RussT is wrong. Nereid was simply assuming that everyone knows that neutrinos restored the conservation of energy in beta decays, but if anyone does not know that, her comments would seem to suggest (if one reads past the date 1957) that beta decays are still thought to violate energy conservation. It's a cautionary tale-- even if you think it is perfectly obvious what you are saying, if your words can possibly be taken out of context and the meaning altered, then they will be, so you never know what you are going to have to spell out to avoid being misappropriated. Nothing is more difficult than communication.

Directly from the Nereids original and my quote of her!!!



and nothing has changed since - if you do the experiments today, in your own labs, energy appears to be not conserved (nor does momentum).

Now, since you kenG and Slang get to accuse me of being wrong, quote mining and other ad homs all over this board, with apparent impunity, and since slang also wants to play the riddle game....

Why would she 'correctly say' that Energy appears NOT to be conserved???

But see, you can't even answer this, and neither can anyone else!

Why, because if those Neutrinos could have been detected in the Beta decay process itself, it would not have taken them nearly so long to find and verify that a Neutrino particle exists...

Now, here's the real mind boggler......they still can't verify the Neutrino being released in the Beta decay process.....(It has just been "Assumed" that is what is happening and that goes to many other assumptions in all kinds of processes!)....SO, they still do not know if those neutrinos are being released OR if those Neutrinos are staying there and are the 'heavier' part of making the "Lead" particles more dense/massive...;)

ETA: we'll see if trinitree88 picks up on what this really means...if he dares post about this ;)

RussT
2009-Aug-23, 08:25 AM
Here, I'll add another part to this right here, so trinitree can address this too...



Originally Posted by RussT
Posted by Tim Thompson 2002
[Snip!] (baryons are particles which interact with electromagnetic fields at some nonzero level; all of the "ordinary" matter that you encounter is baryonic).



This sounds like defining baryons to be equivalent to non-neutrinos; this is not the definition of baryon that particle physicists use. It sounds rather akin to stellar physicists defining metals to be any element other than hydrogen and helium, much to the disapproval of chemists. If this is the intended definition, then I shall just have to grit my teeth and try to understand. Maybe "ordinary matter" would be better, but that term might carry an implication of being first generation only, that is matter made up of u-quarks, d-quarks, electrons and electron-neutrinos (and their antiparticles).



Originally Posted by RussT
Well, unless this has changed since 2002, this says differently.

And From Wkipedia;
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries an electric charge. It is a spin- lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions.



This is true, but again to particle physicists a baryon is a hadron (strongly interacting particle), and leptons are particles that do not have strong interactions. Leptons of the correct helicity have weak interactions; leptons with electric charge have electromagnetic interactions.

This sounds like defining baryons to be equivalent to non-neutrinos;

This that I bolded by CM, is key, IF trinitree88 gets what I just showed in the Post above.

Ken G
2009-Aug-23, 12:24 PM
Now, since you kenG and Slang get to accuse me of being wrong, quote mining and other ad homs all over this board, with apparent impunity, and since slang also wants to play the riddle game....If you start by looking up the definition of ad hominem, you will find that neither saying that you are quote mining (which you are) or that you are wrong (which you are) are examples of ad hominems. Neither slang, nor I, have impunity when it comes to the basic rules of this board, I assure you.


Why would she 'correctly say' that Energy appears NOT to be conserved???
You'll have to ask her, but her meaning seems clear enough to us. I submit that you have not given due consideration to the importance of the word appears. Remember, neutrinos are very "ghostly" kinds of particles.


Why, because if those Neutrinos could have been detected in the Beta decay process itself, it would not have taken them nearly so long to find and verify that a Neutrino particle exists...Yes, now I think you have taken Nereid's point, as we took her-- the problem is not with conservation of energy, but with the difficulty in detecting neutrinos. Now that neutrinos have been detected, few physicists are bothered by any energy conservation issues in beta decay. What is the actual truth? Well, we never really know that, do we?

m74z00219
2009-Aug-25, 05:03 AM
I thought water had something to do with detecting neutrinos...

Here's the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector




Hint: the energy/ZPE/Neutrinos (at their lowest energy, 2.73k /non-charged electrons/positrons) is coming "IN"/Leaking 'through' the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters (You know, where there is NO Baryonic Matter) and is an (E-R Bridge to SMBH in that other Multi-verse) and going "OUT" 'straight through' the SMBH's in the cores of our galaxies to a Multi-verse below.

This is very interesting RussT. E-R bridge for Einstein Rosen bridge, but I'm not sure what SMBH stands for. Could you point me to where you found this info?




m74

RussT
2009-Aug-25, 09:34 AM
I thought water had something to do with detecting neutrinos...

Here's the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector




This is very interesting RussT. E-R bridge for Einstein Rosen bridge, but I'm not sure what SMBH stands for. Could you point me to where you found this info?




m74

I was going to orginally suggest that you move this to ATM, BUT I thought you might get some String Theory type responses, (Which I was actually leaning toward at one point, albeit, still Through SMBH"s) which is the only way this could be answered in Q&A, BUT alas IMHO, "Dimensionality" is not the answer, so I moved this to ATM...

See...
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/92538-leaking-only-answer-possible-atm.html

RussT
2009-Aug-25, 09:46 AM
If you start by looking up the definition of ad hominem, you will find that neither saying that you are quote mining (which you are) or that you are wrong (which you are) are examples of ad hominems. Neither slang, nor I, have impunity when it comes to the basic rules of this board, I assure you.
You'll have to ask her, but her meaning seems clear enough to us. I submit that you have not given due consideration to the importance of the word appears. Remember, neutrinos are very "ghostly" kinds of particles.

Yes, now I think you have taken Nereid's point, as we took her-- the problem is not with conservation of energy, but with the difficulty in detecting neutrinos. Now that neutrinos have been detected, few physicists are bothered by any energy conservation issues in beta decay. What is the actual truth? Well, we never really know that, do we?

Now that neutrinos have been detected, few physicists are bothered by any energy conservation issues in beta decay. What is the actual truth? Well, we never really know that, do we?

That totally depends on the questions you are willing to actually search for a "Truth" about KenG. It has become very apparent to very many people that 'something' is very very wrong, and as long as it is okay "To ignore this that and the other thing", because it is supposedly safe to do so, then the things that are definitely problems can never be resolved ;)

I have shown a whole lot of things that are so obvious it isn't even funny, BUT they just keep getting swept under the rug, or my credibility is attacked well enough so it becomes a mute point, ETC.

Like, Tim Thompson 100% agreeing that there are NO non-rotating Black Holes or Accretion discs in our Universe! + numerous others!

Ken G
2009-Aug-25, 03:18 PM
It has become very apparent to very many people that 'something' is very very wrong, and as long as it is okay "To ignore this that and the other thing", because it is supposedly safe to do so, then the things that are definitely problems can never be resolved.As I have no idea what the "something" is that you feel is so wrong, I cannot comment. It is certainly true that science is a self-correcting process that is always trying to improve. Is that all you are saying?

Like, Tim Thompson 100% agreeing that there are NO non-rotating Black Holes or Accretion discs in our Universe! + numerous others!Here it sounds like you are saying that science creates models of reality, rather than little identical copies of reality. That hardly seems controversial.

trinitree88
2009-Aug-25, 04:04 PM
Directly from the Nereids original and my quote of her!!!



Now, since you kenG and Slang get to accuse me of being wrong, quote mining and other ad homs all over this board, with apparent impunity, and since slang also wants to play the riddle game....

Why would she 'correctly say' that Energy appears NOT to be conserved???

But see, you can't even answer this, and neither can anyone else!

Why, because if those Neutrinos could have been detected in the Beta decay process itself, it would not have taken them nearly so long to find and verify that a Neutrino particle exists...

Now, here's the real mind boggler......they still can't verify the Neutrino being released in the Beta decay process.....(It has just been "Assumed" that is what is happening and that goes to many other assumptions in all kinds of processes!)....SO, they still do not know if those neutrinos are being released OR if those Neutrinos are staying there and are the 'heavier' part of making the "Lead" particles more dense/massive...;)

ETA: we'll see if trinitree88 picks up on what this really means...if he dares post about this ;)

RussT. Greetings from trinitree88-land.
The probability of an interaction in particle physics is a product of two things....flux, and cross-section. Flux is usually denoted as Greek letter phi, abd cross-section by Greek letter sigma, so the probability is usually P(x)=phi*sigma....I'll hunt character map for the correct symbols in a minute.
With neutrinos or antineutrinos, the cross-sections are very tiny, but non-zero. The trick then becomes, use a very large sample of matter in your detector, like a 100,000 ton water Cherenkov tank, and you might see something on occasion...(SEE the IMB).
Nereid is right on the money with her comments on beta decay today. If you see radioactive beta decays, you get a continuous spectrum of energy from the escaping electrons, unlike alpha decays which are quantized with a thermal spread of kinetic energies. Yes, you don't get to see the missing neutrino because it's cross-section is too tiny, and more than 99.999% of them escape a lab calorimeter....( if you want to put a 100,000 ton water detector in your garage, it might help to ask the wife first...she might have some other use for the space & the money involved). KenG is also right, yes we assume the Cowan & Rheines experiment at Savannah River SEE:http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.htmlconfirmed the existence of electron type neutrinos, and we carry this assumption forward to simple lab beta decay set-ups, to infer that it's electron type antineutrinos carrying away the missing energy. Yes, too, you're correct that we don't actually know that they aren't muon or tau type, but the Lederman experiment SEE:http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/lederman.htmlshowed that the muon type is distinctly different from the electron type...bringing in conservation of lepton family number, and we have no reason to believe that this would be violated here, as it has not been seen anywhere else...Occam's Razor(good but not infallible thinking).
There is a way to check it out. Apply a monolayer of Co-60 to a flat side of a pure germanium block. Put it in an evacuated chamber, about 7 miles down in a mineshaft with a very low background..(tough to find). Then you should wait a while depending upon your detector size to catch one of the anti-neutrinos. If emitted through the vacuum, it should never oscillate to muon type, or tau...(according to MSW, my pick..SEE:http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/librairie/theses/gustaaf.brooijmans/node31.html). Trouble is the water chamber must be sealed to eliminate vapor, and the cover provides a matter path for MSW matter oscillations to occur, and Tev cosmic rays are going to produce neutrinos/antineutrinos capable of traversing the entire Earth, and producing signals from any direction) tough backgrounds to eliminate.
With regards to "staying there", both photons and neutrinos travel at c, are born at c, die at c. They don't lurk in the dark recesses of nuclei, but are created by decomposition of W particles. You don't find a neutron made up of a proton, an electron, and an electron type antineutrino. Confining an electron to a volume of space the size of a proton is more difficult than confining an electron to a nucleus, and that is forbidden by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it requires more energy than is needed to disintegrate the nucleus...(binding energy).
Lastly, the quote that all matter is made up of baryons is a little short of the truth. All matter is made up of baryons...heavy particles and leptons....light particles. The universe as we know it has one electron per proton...exactly...making it net neutral electrically, and all atoms containing more than one proton have at least one neutron. Typically a little bit more than one neutron per proton as they get heavier, indicating the need for extra neutrons for stability. See Island of Stability SEE:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~q61/chart118.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~q61/el118.html&usg=__wECFryVXg25tgbQW9BEEQUtxZsk=&h=537&w=717&sz=16&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=rRNFwC8JdkOwmM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperiodic%2Btable%2Bisland%2Bof%2Bstab ility%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

OK, I dared to reply.:lol: pete


energy required to confine a particle in the nucleus...SEE:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html

RussT
2009-Aug-26, 11:26 AM
And a great response it was :)

But, let's clarify something first, please, before I respond.



If you see radioactive beta decays, you get a continuous spectrum of energy from the escaping electrons,

Isn't the Beta Decay energy release "Gamma Radiation/photons"???

tusenfem
2009-Aug-26, 01:39 PM
Isn't the Beta Decay energy release "Gamma Radiation/photons"???


Nope, that would be gamma decay.
Beta decay is through the emission of electrons (or positrons) from the nucleus.