Lab scientists discover five new nuclei

October 28, 2015
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists were part of an international team that discovered five new nuclei: U 218, Np 219, Bk 233, Am 223 and Am 229.

Lawrence Livermore scientists, in conjunction with international researchers, have discovered five new atomic nuclei to be added the chart of nuclides.

The study, conducted this fall, focuses on developing new methods of synthesis for super heavy . The newly discovered, exotic nuclei are one isotope each of heavy elements berkelium, neptunium and uranium and two of the element americium.

Other participants include scientists from Manipal University, India; GSI-Giessen, Germany; Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany; Japan Atomic Energy Agency; and the joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia. The results are published in the journal Physics Letters B. The Lab's Dawn Shaughnessy, Ken Moody, Roger Henderson and Mark Stoyer participated in the experiments.

Every chemical element comes in the form of different isotopes. These isotopes are distinguished from one another by the number of in the nucleus, and thus by their mass. The newly discovered isotopes have fewer neutrons and are lighter than the previously known isotopes of the respective elements.

To date, the known Periodic Table comprises more than 3,000 isotopes of 114 confirmed chemical elements. According to scientific estimates, more than 4,000 additional, undiscovered isotopes also should exist. Due to their low number of neutrons, their structure is very exotic and therefore interesting for the development of theoretical models describing atomic nuclei.

"These results really push what we know about nuclear structure to the extreme, neutron-deficient end of the chart of the nuclides," Shaughnessy said. "When you realize that naturally occurring uranium has 146 neutrons and this new isotope only has 124 neutrons, it shows how much more we still have yet to learn about nuclear structure and the forces that hold the nucleus together."

Scientists at LLNL have been involved in heavy element research since the Laboratory's inception in 1952 and have been collaborators in the discovery of six elements—113, 114 (Flerovium), 115, 116 (Livermorium), 117 and 118.

Apart from discoveries themselves, the discovery is the first proof of the new technique for production of these exotic nuclides.

For the experiment, the scientists shot at a 300-nanometer-thick foil of curium with accelerated calcium nuclei. In the collisions studied, the of the two elements touched and formed a compound system for an extremely short time.

Before the compound system could break apart again, after about a sextillionth of a second, the two nuclei involved exchanged a number of their nuclear building-blocks—protons and neutrons. Different isotopes formed as the end products of this exchange.

The isotopes of berkelium, neptunium, uranium and americium discovered were created as the end products of such collisions. They are unstable and decay after a few milliseconds or seconds, depending on the isotope. All of the resulting decay products can be separated and analyzed using special filters composed of electrical and magnetic fields. The scientists used all of the decay products detected to identify the new isotope that has been created.

The current experiments will make it possible to explore previously unknown areas on the isotope chart. The elements 107 to 112 were discovered using the same experimental facility at GSI.

Explore further: Tests confirm nickel-78 is a 'doubly magic' isotope

More information: Observation of new neutron-deficient isotopes with in multinucleon transfer reactions, Physics Letters B, Volume 748, 2 September 2015, Pages 199-203, ISSN 0370-2693, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.006

Related Stories

Tests confirm nickel-78 is a 'doubly magic' isotope

September 5, 2014

The stability of atoms can vary considerably from one element to the next, and also between isotopes of the same element (whose nuclei contain the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons). While many isotopes ...

New method to better understand atomic nuclei

September 24, 2015

The precise structure of atomic nuclei is an old problem that has not been fully solved yet, and it also constitutes a current research focus in the field of natural sciences. Together with colleagues from Bonn University, ...

Recommended for you

Quantum data takes a ride on sound waves

September 22, 2017

Yale scientists have created a simple-to-produce device that uses sound waves to store quantum information and convert it from one form to another, all inside a single, integrated chip.

A way to measure and control phonons

September 22, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with the University of Vienna in Austria and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands has developed a technique using photons for controlling and measuring phonons. In their paper ...

Gravitational waves may oscillate, just like neutrinos

September 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—Using data from the first-ever gravitational waves detected last year, along with a theoretical analysis, physicists have shown that gravitational waves may oscillate between two different forms called "g" and ...

Detecting cosmic rays from a galaxy far, far away

September 21, 2017

In an article published today in the journal Science, the Pierre Auger Collaboration has definitively answered the question of whether cosmic particles from outside the Milky Way Galaxy. The article, titled "Observation of ...

81 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
2 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2015
I don't understand what they hope to gain by creating such short lived isotopes? I presume it is to get a better understanding of what hold the nucleus together but I suspect they are looking for the wrong source. It could just be an electromagnetic force that holds the nucleus together.

A novel idea it at this link on page 31. http://www.scribd...-Physics
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2015
I don't understand what they hope to gain by creating such short lived isotopes?

The interesting thing are the decay times. It's always good to check our theroretical models against actual experiment. Who knows? Maybe a discrepancy will show up and we'll get the scent for a fifth force? These experiments with unstable nuclei are ideal for checking this (it would either show up as an unexpected long stability of an unexpectedly short decay time depending on the nature of the force)

It could just be an electromagnetic force that holds the nucleus together.

Since all the protons are in the nucleus and all are positively charged - unlikely. The force that mere electromagentic force exerts is huge. If that weren't checked by an other nuclear forces then anything more complex than a hydrogen atom would fly apart immediately. (And other forces exist, as their interchange particles have been already observed)
billpress11
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
AP, you would need to read the explanation at the link I posted to understand why positive charge within is less than it would seem. The positive charge is greater around the nuclei than it is from within.

RealScience
5 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
@billpress11 -
As an open-minded scientist I checked out the link, just in case it had a good alternative explanation (I give things the benefit of the doubt until they remove all doubt).

Here is my honest opinion:

The second paragraph ends with

Frequency is directly related to the length of a man-made unit of time, the second. If the length of a second is changed, the momentum and energy a photon contains changes also. This is because there are now more or fewer waves in each second, and this changes the momentum and energy of the photon.

This shows the author's lack of understanding of how measurement units work. It is like saying that if we switched from Fahrenheit to Celsius, water would freeze differently because it would freeze at 0 degrees instead of at 32 degrees.

The author is stringing together sciencey-sounding phrases without understanding what they mean, so I saw no point in reading further...

billpress11
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
RS, you are ignoring the fact that the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are based on an absolute fact, absolute zero. So naturally they are interchangeable. What absolute unit of time is the second based on? Please tell me.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015

Frequency is directly related to the length of a man-made unit of time, the second. If the length of a second is changed, the momentum and energy a photon contains changes also. This is because there are now more or fewer waves in each second, and this changes the momentum and energy of the photon.

Yea, if we would double the lenght of a second, the speed on the highways would be cut by half. Car crashes would be much less dramatic.

On the other hand airplanes would not have enough air speed too take off !!!

naah, lets keep our good old second.
PPihkala
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2015
In picture there is Uranium 216. In picture text there is Uranium 218. So one of those must be wrong.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
RS, you are ignoring the fact that the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are based on an absolute fact, absolute zero. ... What absolute unit of time is the second based on?


First, Fahrenheit was originally based on the difference between the temperature of a ice in a 50% solution of ammonium chloride, set at 0F, and Fahrenheit's own body temperature, set at 96. It was later redefined to put 180 degrees between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water at earth's standard atmospheric pressure. None of these are absolutes.

Similarly Celsius was originally 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling point of water at earth's average atmospheric pressure, also not absolutes.

Do you really think that water froze differently depending on whether you used F or C BEFORE science found absolute zero?

-continued-
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2015
- continued -

And second, the second was originally also tied to properties related to the earth - 1/3600 of 1/24 of a day, and later as a precise fraction of the year 1900.

and like temperature, the second has also been redefined to be independent of earth properties. From Wikipedia, the second is:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.


To be sure, we NOW have fixed one end of the temperature scale at absolute zero (but ice did not change when we did it).
Do you think that if we decided to re-define what humans call the second as some fraction of the time between time zero (the big bang, or when red-shift say the galaxies were together if you hold an alternate theory), and, say, the point where dark energy caused expansion to accelerate (if you believe the SN data), suddenly photons would actually change?
billpress11
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2015
RS, I think everything you have stated is true, but that does not change the fact that the length of a second is an arbitrary unit of time. It is not based on any fundamental unit in nature (its origin). The unit of time has been later defined in a natural unit of time, I have no problem with that. But what does that have to do with the number of waves in an individual photon? Whereas both of the temperature scales are based on fundamental units in nature (fixed references points). So how can the energy contained in a photon, which is considered a fundamental unit in nature be based on an arbitrary unit? The energy and momentum in a wave are fundamental units, change the length of a second wouldn't you change the energy and momentum in a photon at any given frequency? I will add you may very well be right, I don't know.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
RS, I think everything you have stated is true, but that does not change the fact that the length of a second is an arbitrary unit of time.
@bill
perhaps as you see it, but it is based upon a "fundamental unit in nature" which is the Solar day (to start)
In the year 1000 CE, the Persian Muslim scholar al-Biruni first used the term second in Arabic and defined it as 1⁄86,400 (that is, 1/24 × 60 × 60) of a mean solar day
https://books.goo...;f=false

and it is now based upon this
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
http://www.bipm.o...ond.html

you can learn more here: https://en.wikipe...i/Second

it has always been a "natural unit of time" based upon observations of earth solar day
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
@bill cont'd
and by " it is based upon a "fundamental unit in nature" which is the Solar day" i mean this:

science has always built upon its past (failures as well as successes). this means that, in it's day, the knowledge of our fundamental universe was limited to certain types of observation
We have surpassed this today, true, but in it's day, it was still a part of the fundamentals of science

this is not so much of an argument from a philosophical point so much as it is based upon our still limited abilities, knowledge and being forced to still exist as we evolved: in a gravity well that still influences us by various means (circadian rhythms, for starters) https://en.wikipe...n_rhythm

we are still greatly affected my light as well as gravity. we do NOT do well in micro-gravity or with disruptions of our circadian rhythms, which can cause sleeplessness (which can eventually lead to delusions or even death if not treated or fixed, etc)

billpress11
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
CS, one point I would like to make is that the length of a day is much longer today than it was several billion years ago, it is still getting longer every year. This is why it was given a fixed unchanging value in nature. So its origin is not a fundamental unit.

Now I could be wrong here. but I would think that the energy and momentum in a single wave of light would be a fixed unchanging unit in nature. If the length of a second were twice as long today as it was billions of years ago it would not change the intrinsic value of the energy and momentum in a wave of light. But wouldn't that change the value of both in a photon? Maybe, maybe not, I cannot answer that.

billpress11
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
RE, maybe you should have continued reading that article. What I gather from the article is that the author's problem is that the photon is referred to as a "particle" not as a unit of "energy". I will paraphrase here but he refers to the fact that "it is the only particle that has no defined length or width".

Furthermore he goes on and has a pretty good explanation for both the wave and particle like nature of light.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
... I would think that the energy and momentum in a single wave of light would be a fixed unchanging unit in nature. If the length of a second were twice as long today as it was billions of years ago it would not change the intrinsic value of the energy and momentum in a wave of light.

If the basic 'constants' of physics are indeed constant, then this is correct.

But wouldn't that change the value of both in a photon?

No more than it would change the value of both if we measured the energy in foot-pounds instead of Joules (or electron-volts), and the momentum in slug-feet-per-second (imperial) instead of kilogram-meters-per-second (SI). The NUMBERS we use would change, but what they describe would not change. Just like F versus C in temperature.

it is the only particle that has no defined length or width

Not if quantum mechanics is taken into account (for example, the electron has no length/width either).
billpress11
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
RS, you do have a point when you mention, "If the basic 'constants' of physics are indeed constant, then this is correct." I cannot say whether that is a fact or not. But Planck's Constant (h) is consider the basic unit of energy for a single wave of light. Now it the length of a second was different the energy in a single wave of light would not change, the value of Planck's Constant would change. This is not the case for a photon of light, its value would change because now there would be fewer or more waves of light in it with a fixed wave units of energy per new second's length.

As for the electron, it is not given a dimension because it is considered a point particle. I don't see how a photon can be considered a point particle because today's scientist can create pulse of light in the attosecond range as well as the length that light travels in one second. It has not defined unit of measurement other than hf. With f being an arbitrary unit based on the length of a second.
Bulbuzor
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2015
billpress, I believe the problem with that article is that it assumes that changing the second would somehow influence the EM force. Obviously, it would change the meaning of a frequency, if something has a frequency of 50Hz, making a second to be worth two would make it 100Hz, it would also cut the speed of light by two. But, it wouldn't change the relative significance of forces! None of it would "physically" change. Changing the value of a second would therefore change every single measurement that uses time somewhere in the process, the relative value of everything would stay the same, they'd stay proportional to one another. Afterall, everything in science is based on previous assumptions, experiments and proof and therefore it is all (or almost) only valuable when compared to one another
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Furthermore he goes on and has a pretty good explanation for both the wave and particle like nature of light.


OK, I read several pages.

My problem with the manuscript is not with the author's view of how to interpret the nature of a photon - the quantum description gives excellent results, but has many interpretations, and adding another interpretation is not unreasonable.

But the author says things like:
One fact no one can ignore is that the higher the frequency of the EMR, the more particle-like it becomes. At radio wave frequencies, EMR behaves almost entirely like a wave, and at gamma ray frequencies, entirely like a particle.

That is false. X-rays diffract like radio waves, or x-ray crystallography would not work, and out to where we can count photons (well into the IR band) we still detect individual photons.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
- continued -

So the author presents 'an alternative to the Standard Model' without understanding what the standard model mean (e.g. being wrong about what the standard model says would happen if we re-defined the second), and also being wrong about the physics that we find when we observe waves of different wavelengths.

While I like new interpretations of physics (I have several of my own, for example), I don't have time to read every one of them, and an author who makes may such mistakes has not done enough checking of his/her/its work to put reading it ahead of things like keeping up with articles on phys.org.

Ah - I see that Bulbuzor has posted an excellent (and much shorter) explanation!
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
Bulbuzor, I agree it would not change the EM force but changing the length of a second would change the energy contained in a single photon. It would not change the energy contained in a single wave of light.

RS, I fail to see what is false with this statement: "One fact no one can ignore is that the higher the frequency of the EMR, the more particle-like it becomes. At radio wave frequencies, EMR behaves almost entirely like a wave, and at gamma ray frequencies, entirely like a particle." I think that is pretty much established science based on observations.

I don't see where it has anything to do with diffraction. The particle like nature of EMR can extend down into radio wave lengths I would think. Notice the quote says "almost entirely like a wave". But as the frequency increases the particle like characteristic increase while the wave like ones decrease.
Bulbuzor
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2015
Bulbuzor, I agree it would not change the EM force but changing the length of a second would change the energy contained in a single photon. It would not change the energy contained in a single wave of light.


Wikipedia:
Where E is the photon energy, h is the Planck constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum and λ is the photon's wavelength. As h and c are both constants, the photon energy changes with direct relation to wavelength λ. (I.e: E=hc/λ)

Or, E=hf, where f is your frequency and is worth c/λ

h's units are eV*s
f's units are (m*μm)/s

Seconds cancel eachother. Whether they are worth 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom OR whether they are worth the time to cook and eat a hotdog for the average Texan the result is the same.

Therefore, time is irrelevant and human's conception of a second doesn't alter the physical properties of the universe
Bulbuzor
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2015
Correction: time is irrelevan in this case
Bulbuzor
1 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2015
(nothing)
Bulbuzor
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2015
Correction: f's units are m/(s*μm). It doesn't change the conclusion tho
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
..."...At radio wave frequencies, EMR behaves almost entirely like a wave, and at gamma ray frequencies, entirely like a particle."
... But as the frequency increases the particle like characteristic increase while the wave like ones decrease.


It is not that the particle-like or wavelength characteristics increase or decrease, it is that with our current instruments those characteristics become easier or harder FOR US TO OBSERVE.

At low energies / long wavelengths the particle-like nature becomes harder for us to observe because the individual photon energies get so feeble (but out as far as we have single-photon detectors, we find particle-like characteristics).

For gamma rays the wave-like nature becomes harder for us to observe because we lack materials with regular spacings as small as the wavelength (but as short as we have atomic spacings, we still find wavelength properties (e.g., diffraction)).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
CS, one point... length of a day is much longer ...it was given a fixed unchanging value ...is not a fundamental unit
@bill
True... and... i can understand, but (bear with me), one thing about physics is measurement and the ability to qualify said measurement and it's accuracy. correct?

in our history, the second was measured and found to be accurate WRT the measurement systems that were applied during the day and our understanding of the world & based upon the solar day (with a large margin of error only in today's sense or measurement devices) - today it is based upon a fixed unchanging value because we are far more informed and can measure far more accurately... all of which was built upon the past findings and fundamental research.

IOW- we may well have thought it was a fixed fundamental value at the time, but that changed
(quasi-relevant, but far more interesting from a psych or historical POV)
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2015
I'm having one of those days to where learning that some people don't know how measuring things with numbers works is eating me alive. I remember the ruler I had in grade school, and learning how we all had our own personal "cubit" of measurement, and how measuring things worked because we all agreed on the number. How do you think you can improve aerodynamics by changing the definition of "as the crow flies?" You can measure the ocean in "pink buckets bought from K-Mart" units, but changing the bucket size doesn't change the ocean, just the number in said bucket units. Am I typing this to adults?

If they could package this place into a saloon, you'd have a bar that inspires alcoholism.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
Quote Bulbuzor: " Therefore, time is irrelevant and human's conception of a second doesn't alter the physical properties of the universe" I agree with that, the length of a second does not change the physical property (energy) of a wave of light.

CS, I agree with the fixing of the value on the length of a second, but it could have been fixed at any length in time without changing the value of the fundamental units in nature.

RS, radio waves are almost completely like waves, they only create a ripple like waves in the electrons absorbing them. Now a gamma ray can change the chemical property of a molecule being struck by it. They can kill living cells, they are like little bullets.

SuperThunder, you are saying the same thing I have been saying just with a different terminology. A wave of light contains the same amount of energy regardless of the length of a second.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2015
A physical quantity is the product of a number and a unit.
If you change the unit you should change the number accordingly.
If you don't you make an error.
Only the physical quantity matters.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
I read this somewhere long ago. How does a blue photon get shifted into a red photon during the expansion of the universe? Does it get shifted into 1 plus a part of a lower frequency photon until its frequency is reduced by 1/2 and then suddenly it becomes 2 lower frequency photons? Some thing like this must be going on because energy and momentum must be conserved.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
RS, radio waves are almost completely like waves, they only create a ripple like waves in the electrons absorbing them. Now a gamma ray can change the chemical property of a molecule being struck by it. They can kill living cells, they are like little bullets.

A little ripple in a puddle won't kill you, but a tsunami can obliterate a city and kill tens of thousands of people. That doesn't make it any less wave-like than a ripple in a puddle.

A grain of salt dropper from the ceiling won't kill you, but a 1-ton salt block dropped from the ceiling can kill you. That doesn't make it any more particle-like.

A radio wave CAN rip an electron from an atom - Rydberg atoms in space are detected that way by radio astronomers (we don't see radio waves ripping electrons off in our daily experience because the energy of a radio photon is far smaller than the thermal energy of the molecules around us, so any electron so weakly bound would already be gone).
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
RS, Einstein would be quite upset by what you are claiming. Of course today's high power lasers are also breaking his rule on the photoelectric effect. I have no problem with it tho.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2015
Of course today's high power lasers are also breaking his rule on the photoelectric effect


You guys got the advantage on me when it comes to the complicated stuffs. If you could would explain about that one to me, in easy to understand ways? Which rule and what does he say? And what do the lasers do that is against the rules?

I never read on the physorg that Einstein-Skippy's rules were getting broken by laser beams. But it is possible I did read it and not understand it.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015

Quote from link below:
"What if, you say, two of these photons hit the electron, and the sum of their energies is enough to free the electron? Wouldn't we have electrons emitted, no matter how low the frequency?

It is possible, but usually happens seldom enough that it can be ignored unless the intensity of the beam is extremely high."

http://curious.as...rmediate
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2015

Quote from link below:
"What if, you say, two of these photons hit the electron, and the sum of their energies is enough to free the electron? Wouldn't we have electrons emitted, no matter how low the frequency?

It is possible, but usually happens seldom enough that it can be ignored unless the intensity of the beam is extremely high."

http://curious.as...rmediate


What was Einstein-Skippy's rule that got broken? Is it a No-Two-Photon-Rule? That is the part I don't understand. But it was a good article you postumed the link for.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
Ira, the two or more photon rule does not really break the Einstein's rule of the photoelectric effect. But if you do a little searching on the Internet you will find that the photon theory of light is so enthrenched that nearly all refer to the ability of lower frequencies of light that ionized an atom below the threshold of the photoelectric effect as multiple photon ionization.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2015
RS, Einstein would be quite upset by what you are claiming. Of course today's high power lasers are also breaking his rule on the photoelectric effect. I have no problem with it tho.


The electron in a Rydberg atom is so weakly bound that a single photon of radio wavelength has sufficient energy to free it, so Einstein would not be upset.

Last I knew the weakest-bound that had been detected corresponded to a photon of about 25 GHz, but that was a few decades ago so even weaker-bound ones have probably been found since then...
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
Ira, the two or more photon rule does not really break the Einstein's rule of the photoelectric effect. But if you do a little searching on the Internet you will find that the photon theory of light is so enthrenched that nearly all refer to the ability of lower frequencies of light that ionized an atom below the threshold of the photoelectric effect as multiple photon ionization.


Skippy, you are confusing me. First you say that Einstein-Skippy is going to be upset because his rule is getting broken by the lasers. Then you say his rule is not really getting broken.

Lookie-loo here Cher, I admit I do not understand a lot of this, but I do not have any trouble reading stuffs if people are not trying to make it impossible to understand on purpose to cover up for something. A lot of peoples here do that to me thinking I will loose interest.

Can you at least tell me what the rule is? Not that it is the photo-electro effect rule, but what the rule actually is?
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Ira, at this link is a good explanation of Einstein's photoelectric effect rule. https://en.wikipe...c_effect

Yes, my two earlier post were a little confusing because I did not want to get involved a long discussion about the problems the photon theory of light has because it is accepted gospel in the scientific community today. I really don't want to get involved with this again but I will, here it goes.

The photon theory of light is an incomplete theory. For example, as I mentioned in an earlier post if the length of a second is change the value of a photon changes. Here is why, if the second were 1/2 the length it is today the energy and momentum of a wave of light would not change but the energy and momentum of a photon would be reduced by half. That alone is proof that a photon is not a fundamental particle because changing the value of a unit of measurement not based on a fundamental unit in nature cannot change the value of one that is.
Continued-
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
The second major problem that the photon theory of light has is in one of my earlier posting. I have never heard of any explanation as to how this happens with in the photon theory of light. In the wave theory of light it is easily explained.

I read this somewhere long ago. How does a blue photon get shifted into a red photon during the expansion of the universe? Does it get shifted into 1 plus a part of a lower frequency photon until its frequency is reduced by 1/2 and then suddenly it becomes 2 lower frequency photons? Some thing like this must be going on because energy and momentum must be conserved.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
Ira, at this link is a good explanation of Einstein's photoelectric effect rule.


I am sure the rule is in there somewhere, but I can not read your mind. What exactly is this rule you said was broken, and then said was not really broken? You seem to think you have made some scientifical discovery that the Einstein-Skippy missed. All I am trying to learn is WHAT is it that Einstein-Skippy missed?

A lot peoples here on the physorg are always crowing and hooting about how they are proving Einstein got it wrong. Really-Skippy, Returnering-Skippy and Zephir-Skippy and the No-Fate-Reset-Rubberdude-A2G-BSchoot-Skippy and the NAZI-Cantdrive-Skippy and the Reg-Monday-Skippy and the Antone-Skippy and the JVK-Skippy and a lot of other silly Skippys. Are you one of those? They can not tell me how it works either, just that Einstein got it wrong.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
How does a blue photon get shifted into a red photon during the expansion of the universe? Does it get shifted into 1 plus a part of a lower frequency photon until its frequency is reduced by 1/2 and then suddenly it becomes 2 lower frequency photons?


Why it got to be two photons, it can still be the same only photon wave just stretched out over more space.

Some thing like this must be going on because energy and momentum must be conserved.


Seems to me that they are still being conserved, because even though the blue photon-wave has more energy in a little space, when it turns red it has the same amount of energy only it is spread out diluted in more space.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by describing EMR as a particle which is called a photon. Hie claimed that the photoelectric effect required a minimum frequency and offered that as proof that light is a particle.. There is a lot of evidence that would indicates that. Now comes along the powerful lasers of today that are able to cause the effect at lower frequencies than required by the photon theory. That is why the multiple photons of lower frequencies claim was added.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Einstein's theories are mostly correct but there is room to question some of them. Here is another posting on another article where I question some of Einstein's claims.

Continued-

RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
if the second were 1/2 the length it is today the energy and momentum of a wave of light would not change but the energy and momentum of a photon would be reduced by half.


I addressed this statement with examples, and Bulbuzor addressed it with math:

the photon energy changes with direct relation to wavelength λ. (I.e: E=hc/λ)

Or, E=hf, where f is your frequency and is worth c/λ

h's units are eV*s
f's units are (m*μm)/s

Seconds cancel eachother. Whether they are worth 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom OR whether they are worth the time to cook and eat a hotdog for the average Texan the result is the same.


So the use of seconds is NOT a problem of 'photon theory' because SECONDS CANCEL.

Having had this patiently explained in this thread, why do you repeat what Royer's 'Waves of particle' says - are you treating it as Gospel?

billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Quote from a previous article:

"Shavera, I understand what you are saying. Where I find a contradiction is that Einstein dismissed the concept of a "preferred or fixed" frame of reference, but he then went on to state the speed of light was alway the same in any direction regardless of the motion of the light source. I agree with that totally. But doesn't that make the speed of light a fixed reference point? The measured velocity and the actual velocity would not be the same, the Sagnac Effect shows us that in moving objects. By measuring light's velocity in two or more direction from a moving source we should be able to establish a preferred frame of reference. And if it was the same as the earth's movement in the CBR it would only add further evidence."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

This not an attempt to disparage Einstein, after all no one is always right, no not even me.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Quote Ira: "Why it got to be two photons, it can still be the same only photon wave just stretched out over more space."
"Seems to me that they are still being conserved, because even though the blue photon-wave has more energy in a little space, when it turns red it has the same amount of energy only it is spread out diluted in more space."

On your first quote, no that cannot cause the photoelectric effect for several reasons. One it would be the same amount of energy with just a longer wave length. Secondly that would give the electron being struck time to past some of the energy on to other parts of the atom or even radiate part of it away.

On your second quote, yes that it would have to be that way but now you would end up either a lower frequency photon with left over waves or one with too many waves.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
Now comes along the powerful lasers of today that are able to cause the effect at lower frequencies than required by the photon theory. That is why the multiple photons of lower frequencies claim was added.

The absorption of two photons should requires two photon close together in space and time. The likelihood of this should scale with the square of the number of photons, and indeed the rate of such events has been measured as being proportional to the square of the intensity, so this result matches the predictions of 'photon theory'.


I believe Einstein's theories are mostly correct but there is room to question some of them.

Good. You should question everything, including the claims Royer makes about 'photon theory' in 'Waves of particles'.

(Note that I have NOT said that Royer's theory itself is wrong, but just pointed out that Royer's objections to 'Photon theory' are wrong and show a lack of understanding of units of measurement.)
billpress11
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
RS you and Bulbuzor can cancel the seconds if you want. The energy and momentum of a single wave of light is not time dependent it is a basic unit in the universe, change the value of time and the numerical value of h changes. Do the same to the photon an its energy and momentum change because it is dependent on both the value of h AND time. The photon cannot exist without the unit of time.

The energy and momentum ratio is change between a wave of light and the photon.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
The energy and momentum of a single wave of light is not time dependent it is a basic unit in the universe

Just so that there is no misunderstanding of what you mean by this, please write down the equations for what you mean by "the energy and momentum of a single wave of light".


change the value of time and the numerical value of h changes. Do the same to the photon an its energy and momentum change because it is dependent on both the value of h AND time

Please read your own words:
"change the value of time and the numerical value of h changes"
"energy and momentum change because it is dependent on both the value of h AND time"

So if you change the numerical value of time by say, 2x, then the numerical value of h changes by 2x, and the energy and momentum change by 2x one direction from h and 2x the other direction from time and the 2x's cancel.
Bulbuzor
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2015
So if you change the numerical value of time by say, 2x, then the numerical value of h changes by 2x, and the energy and momentum change by 2x one direction from h and 2x the other direction from time and the 2x's cancel.


This should be a case closed I am not sure what the argument is still about. I also agree with you RS, bill, please write down the equations you are talking about, the ones of EM force that you say changes depending on the value of a second so that we can argue around the same formula.

On a more methodological point of view, all of our numbers are biased by some units which are "arbitrary" in a sense (a meter doesn't mean anything physically). The only way to cope with it is to have this bias standardized so that every number is biased the same way, and I cannot think of a better example then seconds and how specific and precise it's value is.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
RS, is there an equation for the mass and charge of the electron and proton? I am not aware of any because they both basic units in nature. So is the energy and momentum contain in a single wave of light.

If the unit of time is changed by 2x the value of h is also changed because its value is based on a unit of time. The energy and momentum of a wave of light being a basic unit of nature it is not based on time, the numerical value of h base on time, it is the one that changes to represent exactly the same amount of energy and momentum that a wave of light has right now at 1x.
The value of a photon like the value of h, electron volt, etc are based on time. Therefore the photon, if a second were 2X, would now have twice the frequency and twice as much energy and momentum of what it is now while the single wave of light would still contain the same amount of both. The ratio would be changed.

I cannot explain it any better than that.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
Bulbuzor, you are correct they all are but their basic value does not change when they are used to describe basic units in nature. Change to value of our arbitrary units and their numerical value changes. In other words the mass of an electron is the same whether it is given in pounds or kilograms. The same goes for the charges of the electron and proton or the energy and momentum contained in a single wave of light.
Bulbuzor
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2015
h's units are eV*s
f's unit is s^-1

The energy would stay the same, unless you are talking about another energy equation, in which case, write it down
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
h's units are eV*s
f's unit is s^-1

The energy would stay the same, unless you are talking about another energy equation, in which case, write it down

You are correct but their numerical value WOULD change while retaining the same basic value because all of the ones you listed are based on a unit of time. In the case of a photon the number of of light waves it contains which have a fixed value would change, changing its core value.
Bulbuzor
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2015
Wasn't your premise that the low value of EM force compared to nuclear force is due to our definition of a second? In which case, the equation stated above proves it to be false, yes, it's component's values change (h and f), but the value of the energy is not affected.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Wasn't your premise that the low value of EM force compared to nuclear force is due to our definition of a second? In which case, the equation stated above proves it to be false, yes, it's component's values change (h and f), but the value of the energy is not affected.

The component value of h and f change but the value of the energy in a wave of light is not affected. The component value of a photon is changed because the very number of waves of light at a fixed value is changed.
Bulbuzor
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2015
Wasn't your premise that the low value of EM force compared to nuclear force is due to our definition of a second? In which case, the equation stated above proves it to be false, yes, it's component's values change (h and f), but the value of the energy is not affected.

The component value of h and f change but the value of the energy in a wave of light is not affected. The component value of a photon is changed because the very number of waves of light at a fixed value is changed.


I think you don't even understand your own point. Please confirm, your hypothesis is that the weak value of EM force compared to nuclear force is related to our interpretation of a second. Right?

Please clarify what the debate is actually about.
The component value of a photon is changed because the very number of waves of light at a fixed value is changed.


10 waves per 9,192,631,770 periods
or
20 waves per 18,385,263,540 periods
is identical
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Quote Bulbuzor:
"10 waves per 9,192,631,770 periods
or
20 waves per 18,385,263,540 periods
is identical"

Before I could agree that they are identical I would need to know if the value of your "periods" are identical. And if they are identical the two examples are no more identical than 1 is to 2.

What is the debate about? The photon, whether it is a fundamental unit in nature with a fixed unchanging value regardless to the units used to measure it, I say no. I assume you believe it is.
Bulbuzor
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2015
What is the debate about? The photon, whether it is a fundamental unit in nature with a fixed unchanging value regardless to the units used to measure it, I say no. I assume you believe it is.


I believe our description of a second doesn't change the nature of physics, tho my field is not physics (rather ecology) so I'm no expert in this domain, just an enthousiastic follower of physic's news.

Define "value" please, which one do you refer to.

Before I could agree that they are identical I would need to know if the value of your "periods" are identical. And if they are identical the two examples are no more identical than 1 is to 2.


Those numbers (10 and 20) are arbitrary, all I meant is that if you double the second, the number of waves per second stays the same even tho you get from 10periods per sec to 20.

Those transistion periods are incredibly consistant, I invite you to read about atomic clocks it is the base of our time model.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
RS, is there an equation for the mass and charge of the electron and proton?


There are many - the charge on the proton is -3 times the charge of a down quark, or +1.5 time the charge of an up quark, or in SI units, 1.6 x 10^-19 Coulombs, which is 1.6x10^-19 Amp-seconds.

From the structure of a proton, the standard model says that it is twice the charge of an up quark plus the (negative) charge of a down quark, and that that happens to equal the charge on the electron, so perhaps it is the 1/3 charge that is the true fundamental.

The component value of a photon is changed because the very number of waves of light at a fixed value is changed.

No, nothing important about a photon changes if the second changes, only some arbitrary numbers we humans use to compare things. The ratio of the of a given photon's energy to the quark binding energy of a proton would remain the same, or the ratio to the proton-electron binding energy of hydrogen.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
- continued -

The only reason that many of the arbitrary numbers used by humans would change if the second changes is that the SI system is also known as the MKS system for meter-kilogram-second, so most of our units have 'seconds' buried in them somewhere.

However that makes no real difference - if seconds were twice as long we would simply use twice a big a number for the frequency of everything, and all of the ratios would stay the same.

For example, if I were talking to a Martian and I measure my paycheck in dollars per Martian year I would get a much bigger number than if I measure it in dollars per Earth year, but NOTHING IMPORTANT WOULD HAVE CHANGED - I would be neither richer nor poorer.

Similarly a given photon would be neither richer nor poorer, or have any more or less energy, just because we described that energy using a different second.
RealScience
not rated yet Oct 30, 2015
Removing duplicate.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
Quote RS: "However that makes no real difference - if seconds were twice as long we would simply use twice a big a number for the frequency of everything, and all of the ratios would stay the same."

Let's say the second were twice a long as it is today. The mass of a proton would not change. The energy and momentum contained in wave of light would not change. But the energy and momentum in a photon would double because it would now contain twice as many waves of light therefore twice as much energy and momentum.

Sorry, I just cannot explain it any better than that.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
...But the energy and momentum in a photon would double because it would now contain twice as many waves of light therefore twice as much energy and momentum.


That's a very clear explanation of what you think, but that is not what the standard theory of photons says would happen.
Why do you think that a 'photon' contains some number of wavelengths proportional to the length of a second, and that the energy and momentum of a photon are proportional to this number?

If the length of a second were doubled, the NUMBER use to DESCRIBE the frequency would double, but the NUMBER used to DESCRIBE Planck's Constant would also change. It is now ~6.6×10^-16 eV*sec, and it is a constant so if seconds are doubled it would be ~3.3x10^-16 eV*newsecond. To confirm that this is the same constant, this is 3.3x10^-16 eV*2*oldseconds = 2 * 3.3x10^-16 eV*oldseconds = 6.6x10^-16 eV*oldseconds, which is indeed the same constant.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
- continued -

Oops - I mixed h (6.6 etc. J*sec) and h-bar (~6.6 etc. eV*sec)...

Correcting those last three sentences:

Planck's constant is now ~4×10^-15 eV*sec, and it is a constant so if seconds are doubled to newseconds it would be ~2x10^-15 eV*newsecond. To confirm that this is the same constant, this is ~2x10^-15 eV*2*oldseconds = 2 * ~2x10^-15 eV*oldseconds = ~4x10^-15 eV*oldseconds, which is indeed the same constant.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
- continued -

So if the original frequency were, say, 5*10^14 (yellow-orange) per oldsecond, then the new frequency would be 10*10^14 per newsecond.

The original photon energy would be 4x10^-15 eV*oldsecond * 5*10^14 / oldsecond, or 20 * 10^-1 eV = 2 eV.

Now how about the energy calculated in newseconds?

The newseconds photon energy would be 2x10^-15 eV*newsecond * 10*10^14 / newsecond, or 20 * 10^-1 eV = 2 eV.

So a yellow orange photon has ~2 eV of energy even if the length of a second is doubled.
So changing the length of the second DID NOT CHANGE the energy of the photon.

I hope that that is clear enough!

billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
Quote RS: "Why do you think that a 'photon' contains some number of wavelengths proportional to the length of a second, and that the energy and momentum of a photon are proportional to this number?'

Because that is what frequency is based on the length of a second, you double the length of a second you double the numerical value.

Quote RS; "Now how about the energy calculated in newseconds?"

The energy and momentum in the new second have exactly the same INTRINSIC value as in the old second. A wave of light is a fundamental unit in nature, NOTHING we can do will change the intrinsic value of its energy and momentum, absolutely nothing.

Quote RS: "Now how about the energy calculated in newseconds?"

Its intrinsic value it the same for a wave of light, the numerical value of h is what changes.

Yes, I hope this is clear enough!

Hey, I taking a break, thanks.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2015

Because that is what frequency is based on the length of a second, you double the length of a second you double the numerical value.
...
the numerical value of h is what changes.

Exactly - nothing INTRINSIC about the photon changes. If we double the second the numerical value that we humans use to describe the frequency doubles, and the numerical value that we use to describe Planck's constant is cut in half. Nothing intrinsic about the photon would actually change - just the numbers we humans use to describe it.

Thus this 'problem' that Royer claims exists for 'photon theory' is NOT a problem.

taking a break, thanks


Excellent idea!
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2015
Quote RS: "Exactly - nothing INTRINSIC about the photon changes. If we double the second the numerical value that we humans use to describe the frequency doubles, and the numerical value that we use to describe Planck's constant is cut in half. Nothing intrinsic about the photon would actually change - just the numbers we humans use to describe it."

When you first brought this up I thought you might be right. But after thinking more about it I came to realize that it was correct in that little booklet. What you are pointing out seems to make sense. Here's the problem,sure the numerical value of Planck's Constant would be reduced by half as you state BUT the actual value of the energy and momentum represented by that constant would be the same as it was before the length of the second was changed.

The reason is quite simple, Planck's Constant would still represent the energy and momentum of a wave of light WHICH does have an unchangeable intrinsic value. New Planck = old Planck.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2015
The reason is quite simple, Planck's Constant would still represent the energy and momentum of a wave of light...


No. Planck's constant is NOT energy. Planck's constant has units of ENERGY times TIME.
So if we double the size of seconds, the number we measure Planck's constant at would be half as big because the PRODUCT is constant.

We could describe the universe with minutes rather than seconds as the fundamental unit of time. Instead of measuring Planck's constant as ~4x10^-15 eV*sec, we can measure Planck's constant and find that it is ~6.6x10^-17 eV*min.

Instead of describing the frequency of yellow-orange light as 5x10^14 cycles per second, we would describe it as 3x10^16 cycles per minute. When we multiply Planck's constant in eV*min by the number of cycle per minute, we get 2 eV.

So Royer is WRONG - the energy of a photon does NOT change if you change the unit of time. You have seen the math worked out - go through it and confirm this for yourself!
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2015
RS, I guess we will just have to leave it as a honest disagreement. I don't understand why you want to use minutes instead of seconds, it really does not change a thing because the minute is just as arbitrary of a unit of time as the second. It changes nothing.

Planck's Constant directly represents the energy in a single wave of EMR. You cannot change intrinsic value of a wave of light, so you cannot change the intrinsic value of Planck's constant. Changing the length of a second does not change the intrinsic value of either, only the numerical value of h is changes AND the energy in a photon of EMR at every given frequency. Why, because now the frequency of your yellow-orange light contains more or less waves.

Changing the frequency from seconds to minutes would only increase the frequency by a factor of 60, it would still be yellow-orange but with a frequency 60 times greater than at a second time unit.
Changing the second to a minute is just an exercise in futility.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2015
RS, I am questioning things a little again. I will leave it for now and get back to it in 6 plus hours.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2015
Planck's Constant directly represents the energy in ...

NO!
If Planck's Constant directly represented the energy in anything, it would have units of ENERGY (Joules, eV, etc.).

But Planck's constant does NOT have units of energy.
It is 6.626176 x 10-34 joule-SECONDS, or 4.1356676 eV-SECONDS

Planck's constant is a measure of energy PER FREQUENCY.
To calculate energy from Plank's constant, you need to multiple by some frequency (1/seconds). The seconds then cancel, leaving energy.

I don't understand why you want to use minutes instead of seconds, it really does not change a thing...


That's exactly the point - as you say, changing from one unit of time to another unit of time really does not change a thing. Contrary to what Royer says, it does NOT change the photon energy in photon theory.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2015
Quote RS: "Planck's constant is a measure of energy PER FREQUENCY.
To calculate energy from Plank's constant, you need to multiple by some frequency (1/seconds). The seconds then cancel, leaving energy."

Energy per frequency is the same thing as energy per wave.
del2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2015
Energy per frequency is the same thing as energy per wave.

"Energy per wave" is a meaningless phrase. If you mean "energy per wavelength" then is it definitely NOT the same thing.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2015
Quote RS: "Planck's constant has units of ENERGY times TIME."

Quote de12: "
"energy per wavelength"

Thanks to both of you. Those two short phrases are what opened my eyes.

Now I still have questions I would like to find answers to, like in the Doppler Effect, how can a red light photon change into a blue one and visa-versa? In one case red to blue it would seem there would not be enough waves, the other way too many. Or the question I asked earlier about how the red shifting of light caused by the expansion of the universe would be explained by the photon theory of light?

RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2015
Now I still have questions I would like to find answers to,

Great - seeking answers keeps life interesting!

in the Doppler Effect, how can a red light photon change into a blue one and visa-versa? In one case red to blue it would seem there would not be enough waves, the other way too many.
The photons (or light waves) do not change in the Doppler Effect - just how we see the photons, so there is no change in the number of waves.

The Doppler effect in light is more complicated than with sound because the effect is attributed to perception of time rather than to a static propagation medium. However the Doppler effect in sound can be used as a starting point for thinking about the effect in light as long as one doesn't push the analogy too far.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2015
- continued -
Now the red-shift from the stretching of space is an excellent question.

Again one can use sound as a starting point.
Picture sound waves traveling through air in a pressurized room, and then suddenly remove the walls of the room to let the air expand. As the air expands, the sound waves traveling through the air expands along with it. (I've ignored details like the expansion itself only propagating from where the walls were at the speed of sound)

Relativity says that electromagnetic waves travel through space itself rather than through some 'ether' within space, and it is space itself that is expanding rather than something within space, but the analogy will get you pretty far.

As for conservation of energy in stretching redshift, Nother's theorem shows that this doesn't have to apply when space itself is stretching. However until we understand space better (Dark Energy, why vacuum energy is what it is), I'll keep a very open mind in this area.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.