Magnetar mysteries in our galaxy and beyond

Magnetar mysteries in our galaxy and beyond
Illustration of a magnetar—a rotating neutron star with incredibly powerful magnetic fields. Credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

In a new Caltech-led study, researchers from campus and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have analyzed pulses of radio waves coming from a magnetar—a rotating, dense, dead star with a strong magnetic field—that is located near the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy. The new research provides clues that magnetars like this one, lying in close proximity to a black hole, could perhaps be linked to the source of "fast radio bursts," or FRBs. FRBs are high-energy blasts that originate beyond our galaxy but whose exact nature is unknown.

"Our observations show that a radio magnetar can emit pulses with many of the same characteristics as those seen in some FRBs," says Caltech graduate student Aaron Pearlman, who presented the results today at the 233rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle. "Other astronomers have also proposed that magnetars near could be behind FRBs, but more research is needed to confirm these suspicions."

The research team was led by Walid Majid, a visiting associate at Caltech and principal research scientist at JPL, which is managed by Caltech for NASA, and Tom Prince, the Ira S. Bowen Professor of Physics at Caltech. The team looked at the magnetar named PSR J1745-2900, located in the Milky Way's galactic center, using the largest of NASA's Deep Space Network radio dishes in Australia. PSR J1745-2900 was initially spotted by NASA's Swift X-ray telescope, and later determined to be a magnetar by NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), in 2013. 

"PSR J1745-2900 is an amazing object. It's a fascinating magnetar, but it also has been used as a probe of the conditions near the Milky Way's ," says Fiona Harrison, the Benjamin M. Rosen Professor of Physics at Caltech and the principal investigator of NuSTAR. "It's interesting that there could be a connection between PSR J1745-2900 and the enigmatic FRBs."

Magnetars are a rare subtype of a group of objects called pulsars; pulsars, in turn, belong to a class of rotating dead stars known as neutron stars. Magnetars are thought to be young pulsars that spin more slowly than ordinary pulsars and have much stronger magnetic fields, which suggests that perhaps all pulsars go through a magnetar-like phase in their lifetime.

The magnetar PSR J1745-2900 is the closest-known pulsar to the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, separated by a distance of only 0.3 light-years, and it is the only pulsar known to be gravitationally bound to the black hole and the environment around it. 

In addition to discovering similarities between the galactic-center magnetar and FRBs, the researchers also gleaned new details about the magnetar's radio pulses. Using one of the Deep Space Network's largest radio antennas, the scientists were able to analyze individual pulses emitted by the star every time it rotated, a feat that is very rare in radio studies of pulsars. They found that some pulses were stretched, or broadened, by a larger amount than predicted when compared to previous measurements of the magnetar's average behavior. Moreover, this behavior varied from pulse to pulse.

"We are seeing these changes in the individual components of each pulse on a very fast time scale. This behavior is very unusual for a magnetar," says Pearlman. The radio components, he notes, are separated by only 30 milliseconds on average.

One theory to explain the signal variability involves clumps of plasma moving at high speeds near the magnetar. Other scientists have proposed that such clumps might exist but, in the new study, the researchers propose that the movement of these clumps may be a possible cause of the observed signal variability. Another theory proposes that the variability is intrinsic to the magnetar itself. 

"Understanding this signal variability will help in future studies of both magnetars and pulsars at the center of our galaxy," says Pearlman.

In the future, Pearlman and his colleagues hope to use the Deep Space Network radio dish to solve another outstanding pulsar mystery: Why are there so few pulsars near the galactic center? Their goal is to find a non- pulsar near the galactic-center black hole.

"Finding a stable in a close, gravitationally bound orbit with the supermassive black hole at the galactic center could prove to be the Holy Grail for testing theories of gravity," says Pearlman. "If we find one, we can do all sorts of new, unprecedented tests of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity." 

The new study, titled "Pulse Morphology of the Galactic Center Magnetar PSR J1745-2900," appeared in the October 20, 2018, issue of The Astrophysical Journal.


Explore further

Two sides of the same star

More information: Aaron B. Pearlman et al. Pulse Morphology of the Galactic Center Magnetar PSR J1745–2900, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aade4d
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Magnetar mysteries in our galaxy and beyond (2019, January 10) retrieved 20 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-magnetar-mysteries-galaxy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
655 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 10, 2019
...."could perhaps be linked to the source of "fast radio bursts," or FRBs. FRBs are high-energy blasts that originate beyond our galaxy but whose exact nature is unknown."

"Our observations show that a radio magnetar can emit pulses with many of the same characteristics as those seen in some FRBs," says Caltech graduate student Aaron Pearlman,"

Mr Pearlman, that radio bursts are "high energy" is demonstrative of your ignorance of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum.

Gamma Rays are found at the opposite end of the EM Spectrum where Radio Waves are found & are the shortest wavelength ENERGY WAVES we know & therefore the highest energy.

At a time of your convenience you need to huddle with your colleagues at CalTech & study where in the EM Spectrum Radio Wave occurs, you will discover they are the LONGEST wavelength EM radiation captioned in the Spectrum & therefore the LOWEST energy waves captioned on every spectrum noted in any physics textbook book in print.


Jan 10, 2019
Electric fields in spinning pulsars

Magnetars a subtype pulsar of rotating neutron stars as young pulsars spin more slowly and have stronger magnetic fields suggesting all pulsars go through a magnetars phase in life

Spin momentum and electric fields
induce magnetic fields
where
these magnetic fields by virtue of their spinning pulsar
further induce electric currents resulting in increasing magnetic fields
as this pulsar youngster
is the same mass as when it enters adulthood
if neutron theory is correct
this pulsar youngster has the same mass as the neutron that collapses to its pulsar BH

One theory to explain the signal variability involves clumps of plasma moving at high speeds near magnetars

This accretion pulsar disk is held by gravity
is the same accretion disc around it pulsar BH
as a slow spinning youngster = less magnetic field
a faster spinning adult pulsar = more magnetic field
This magnetar = a weaker magnetic field

Jan 10, 2019
Mr Pearlman, that radio bursts are "high energy" is demonstrative of your ignorance of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum.

Gamma Rays are found at the opposite end of the EM Spectrum where Radio Waves are found & are the shortest wavelength ENERGY WAVES we know & therefore the highest energy.

At a time of your convenience you need to huddle with your colleagues at CalTech & study where in the EM Spectrum Radio Wave occurs, you will discover they are the LONGEST wavelength EM radiation captioned in the Spectrum & therefore the LOWEST energy waves captioned on every spectrum noted in any physics textbook book in print.


Benni here showing the world just how smart he is! He was offered a professorship at Harvard's Department of Physics, but declined because he didn't want to be surrounded by morons all day, sucking up his valuable time.

Jan 10, 2019
Magnetars in spin

As the mass is equal in all stages of a pulsars life
as this pulsar shrinks
preserving angular momentum
increasing its angular spin
the accretion disc remains in its same orbit
but
as the spin increase
so does the magnetic field
field strength is proportional to the velocity of the field
as it passes through this pulsars accretion disc
as the accretion orbital is proportional to the constant mass of this pulsar
not its diameter or spin
so
as this pulsar increases its spin
Its magnetic field is cutting through this accretion disc at an ever increasing rate

Jan 10, 2019
Benni here showing the world just how smart he is! He was offered a professorship at Harvard's Department of Physics, but declined because he didn't want to be surrounded by morons all day, sucking up his valuable time.
........all are below my present paygrade.

Jan 10, 2019
@Benni - please stop dude. You are embarrassing yourself. Really and truly. I am being serious and not snarking you.

Jan 10, 2019
@Benni must be a bot - no human is that stupid

Jan 10, 2019
@Benni - please stop dude. You are embarrassing yourself. Really and truly. I am being serious and not snarking you.


The rational mind would ponder how infinite gravity could exist at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass, but those such as yourself are not embarrassed by your insistence such a condition can actually exist. I guess we just call this an Immutable Fantasy of Pop-Cosmology, certainly not an Immutable Law of Physics.

Jan 10, 2019
Benni, what happens when r^2 = 0?

Jan 10, 2019
@Benni - please stop dude. You are embarrassing yourself. Really and truly. I am being serious and not snarking you.


The rational mind would ponder how infinite gravity could exist at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass, but those such as yourself are not embarrassed by your insistence such a condition can actually exist. I guess we just call this an Immutable Fantasy of Pop-Cosmology, certainly not an Immutable Law of Physics.

"Infinite Gravity" is simply an artifact of mathematics, NOT rational minds...
I notice you've added it to the surface, as well as the center...

Jan 10, 2019
Benni, what happens when r^2 = 0?


Why are you doing chicken scratching?

Oh, just dawned on me that you mean this: r²=0 ?

Jan 10, 2019
The portability of ANSI characters?

Now please, tell us the story again. What happens when r^2 = 0?

(I'm sorry, googling ANSI and portability is just going to eat up your whole day)

Jan 10, 2019
The rational mind would ponder...


I'll stop you there.

Jan 10, 2019
What happens when r^2 = 0?


Why do you write unintelligible expressions?

Jan 10, 2019
........all are below my present paygrade

If you have to brag about smarts and income in an internet forum, there's a high probability that you possess little of either.

Jan 10, 2019
........all are below my present paygrade

If you have to brag about smarts and income in an internet forum, there's a high probability that you possess little of either.


Guaranteed. Dunning-Kruger syndrome at its worst! Had to teach the loon what a half-life is! Among other very basic misunderstandings of science.

Jan 10, 2019
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment...and WHY EXACTLY you disagree. Doing anything less will only indicate to the intelligent readers that YOU are no better than HE is. So, if you want to be the better one(s) in this New Year, then try to just stick politely to science/logics and leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year where they belong. It would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)

Jan 10, 2019
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment...and WHY EXACTLY you disagree. Doing anything less will only indicate to the intelligent readers that YOU are no better than HE is. So, if you want to be the better one(s) in this New Year, then try to just stick politely to science/logics and leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year where they belong. It would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)


Why bother? The bloke is scientifically illiterate, and his views are worthless.

Jan 10, 2019
@jonesdave.
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment...and WHY EXACTLY you disagree. Doing anything less will only indicate to the intelligent readers that YOU are no better than HE is. So, if you want to be the better one(s) in this New Year, then try to just stick politely to science/logics and leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year where they belong. It would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)


Why bother? The bloke is scientifically illiterate, and his views are worthless.
What particular 'view(s)' in @Benni's initial post/comment in THIS thread are you alluding to, mate?
'ps: In any case, in this New Year, why not just be polite for politeness' sake and leave the old nastiness between you two in the Old Year? :)

Jan 10, 2019
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment...and WHY EXACTLY you disagree. Doing anything less will only indicate to the intelligent readers that YOU are no better than HE is. So, if you want to be the better one(s) in this New Year, then try to just stick politely to science/logics and leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year where they belong. It would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)


OK....... Benni

https://phys.org/...ics.html

(*hint, search for 'OK....... Benni' to find out how crazy this all is)

Jan 10, 2019
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment and WHY EXACTLY you disagree
Anything dealing with science.

Why bother? The bloke is scientifically illiterate, and his views are worthless


Why then do you keep up with the never ending name calling Comments on what Benni writes?

I challenge you to prove infinite gravity can exist on the surface or center of a finite stellar mass in violation of the Immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics & all you do is come back with name calling rants.

So quote for me the immutable law of physics whereby is established that infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass? And, no, I don't mean the usual Pop-Cosmology dodge of resorting to your immutable fantasies of perpetual motion to make your point, just good solid science.

Jan 10, 2019
@IwinUlose.
Guys, Guys! If you have a problem with the content/thrust of Benni's initial post/comment, then just politely point it out if you can; and maybe even courteously explain if you can WHAT EXACTLY it is you disagree with in his post/comment...and WHY EXACTLY you disagree. Doing anything less will only indicate to the intelligent readers that YOU are no better than HE is. So, if you want to be the better one(s) in this New Year, then try to just stick politely to science/logics and leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year where they belong. It would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)


OK....... Benni

https://phys.org/...ics.html

(*hint, search for 'OK....... Benni' to find out how crazy this all is)
The subject was @Benni's INITIAL POST IN THIS THREAD (forgive the capitalization, mate; but it sometimes becomes necessary if people don't read and understand properly). Thanks.


Jan 10, 2019
@Benni and @jonesdave.

From @jonesdave (re @Benni):
Why bother? The bloke is scientifically illiterate, and his views are worthless
From @Benni in response to @jonesdave's:
I challenge you to prove infinite gravity can exist on the surface or center of a finite stellar mass in violation of the Immutable Inverse Square Law....
@Benni, please note what I just posted to @IwinUlose:
The subject was @Benni's INITIAL POST IN THIS THREAD (forgive the capitalization, mate; but it sometimes becomes necessary if people don't read and understand properly).
So...

- @Benni, your reference to a beside-the-point matter from other threads is not helping (since everyone NOW agrees that claims of "infinite gravity/mass singularities are unreal mathematical 'artifacts'; so it would be courteous and rational for you to drop that repetitive 'baiting/trolling' tactic).

- @jonesdave, in reciprocation, it would be courteous and rational to drop your namecalling.

Thanks. :)

Jan 10, 2019
Why then do you keep up with the never ending name calling Comments on what Benni writes?


Is this intentionally in the 3rd person or have you forgotten to log into one of your other accounts before posting?

I think RC is another one of Benni's personalities. They have that strange affectation where they randomly capitalize words. He also ignores Benni's hostility, but has no issue questioning the intent of others. Very odd.

Edit: I stand corrected.

Jan 10, 2019
@MrBojangles.
I think RC is another one of Benni's personalities. They have that strange affectation where they randomly capitalize words. He also ignores Benni's hostility, but has no issue questioning the intent of others. Very odd.
Then you (obviously) think wrong there, mate. As the many years of my posting record will show. And anyway, I can't prevent others emulating my posting 'style', so it behooooves the intelligent reader to do the necessary research and due diligence to avid jumping to wrong conclusions (and anyway, 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery', as they say).

ps:
Edit: I stand corrected.
Thank you for self-correcting your above wrong impression (ie, that I and @Benni were in any way connected other than being PO members and occasional interlocutors here). Much appreciated, mate, I assure you. Cheers. :)

Jan 10, 2019
Is this intentionally in the 3rd person or......
......because I like my moniker, it runs in the family.


Jan 10, 2019
Magnetars in spin

As the mass is equal in all stages of a pulsars life
as this pulsar shrinks
preserving angular momentum
increasing its angular spin
the accretion disc remains in its same orbit
but
as the spin increase
so does the magnetic field
field strength is proportional to the velocity of the field
as it passes through this pulsars accretion disc
as the accretion orbital is proportional to the constant mass of this pulsar
not its diameter or spin
so
as this pulsar increases its spin
Its magnetic field is cutting through this accretion disc at an ever increasing rate

They talk about FRB's, though not about about the most recent received, how confident would you be that FBR's are of magnetar/pulsar (or similar) origin? Ha, I would like to think that it is intelligent life but magnetar/pulsar seems a better candidate.

Jan 11, 2019
A fast-spinning magnetar/pulsar seems to be the most likely source of the FRBs in that neighborhood. What else could it be.

Doubtful that an intelligence would wish to get close to such a powerhouse.

Jan 11, 2019
@the real RealityCheck
Off topic: Are you aware that someone has copied your user name by modifying its spelling by using a capital i in place of a small L in the 4th letter in the user name RealityCheck? If that was YOU in that forum, you were quite abusive towards Shootist. I think that it wasn't YOU, but an imposter using an imitation of your name. It used the / key a few times to make it seem more genuine.

Jan 11, 2019
In Honour of RealityCheck

Guys, Guys!
If you have a problem
with
the content and thrust
of
Benni's initial post and his comment
then
just politely point out
if you can
and
maybe even courteously explain
if you can
what exactly it is
you disagree with in his post
his comment
and
why exactly you disagree
doing anything less
will only indicate
to these intelligent readers
that you are no better than he is
so
if you want to be the better ones
in this New Year
then
try to just stick politely to science and logics
and
leave the silly personal animosity and feuds in the Old Year
where they belong
It would be much appreciated by all here
Thanks

Jan 11, 2019
........all are below my present paygrade

If you have to brag about smarts and income in an internet forum, there's a high probability that you possess little of either.

Ask him about his estate and ski trails...

Jan 11, 2019
........all are below my present paygrade

If you have to brag about smarts and income in an internet forum, there's a high probability that you possess little of either.

Ask him about his estate and ski trails...
.......and don't stop there, ask me how many chainsaws I own & use for cutting down renewable fuel sources for my woodstoves & fireplace? Well, why don't I just tell you, four.

And by the way Whyguy, in case you've forgotten to bring it the the attention of the chatroom......I built the house I live in, almost 4k ft². I live high atop a hill facing west & during the day when the sun is shining I can shut down every heating system in the house even when it's zero outside. I can't see my nearest neighbor.

Anything else you'd like to suggest for Benni to bring to the attention of the chatroom that I may have missed from past chats I've had with you?

Jan 11, 2019
I can't see my nearest neighbor.


How fortunate for your nearest neighbor :P

Jan 11, 2019
A Fast Radio Burst

Is it
a single burst lasting a milli second
or is it
multiple bursts lasting a milli second each, pulsing with the pulsar star spin rate
that
a 30mili second pulsar
creating
33 fast radio bursts a second, each burst, lasting 1/1000s

Jan 11, 2019
@Benni

I built the house I live in, almost 4k ft². I live high atop a hill facing west


Those are admirable achievements that you've had. Not everyone has such great capabilities to do such things for theirselves, as the early American pioneers were wont to do in days of yore - where there were many obstacles to overcome and little assistance except from the "next door neighbor" living a few kilometres down the road. In those days, neighbors helped neighbors, and midwives assisted women giving birth - but that's another story.
Still, it must bring you a lot of joy and comfort to have such accomplishments under your belt, as they say. To go where no city boy has gone before, and to leave them all in the dust and craziness and grime.

These are things that nobody can steal from you, nor diminish any of what you have done.
In spite of attempts to take you down, by insults, invective, and injurious barbs, you have continued on - unscathed - you lucky son-of-a-gun.
:)

Jan 11, 2019
A Fast Radio Burst

Is it
a single burst lasting a milli second
or is it
multiple bursts lasting a milli second each, pulsing with the pulsar star spin rate
that
a 30mili second pulsar
creating
33 fast radio bursts a second, each burst, lasting 1/1000s
says granville

I'm interested from which direction those FRBs are being fired off. Obviously, the bursts are being detected at least partially in our direction so that telescopes and other instrumentation are capturing the effects/images. But, OTOH, if our Solar System were not in its present location, and instead directly opposite and to the rear/other side of the Magnetar/Pulsar, would our telescopes still see the FRB images also?
The article seems to emphasise that there is a Black Hole nearby. Is the presence of the BH a crucial necessity for the Magnetar/Pulsar shooting off FRBs? Or is the BHs nearness merely coincidence? Are there other Magnetar/Pulsars doing the same with or without the presence of other BHs?

Jan 11, 2019
The article seems to emphasise that there is a Black Hole nearby. Is the presence of the BH a crucial necessity for the Magnetar/Pulsar shooting off FRBs? Or is the BHs nearness merely coincidence? Are there other Magnetar/Pulsars doing the same with or without the presence of other BHs?


>Egg.....I see what you're driving at, maybe wondering something like how wide the band of FRB may be, if it's conelike, or a torus or whatever other parameter a single body field can create. These are very long wave length frequencies, very low energy.

There are a few entire galaxies that are seen in mostly radio frequency, unlike most galaxies that are seen mostly in visible light as the dominant wavelength of EM, leaves me to wondering what could be occluding other wavelengths acting like a filter allowing only radio frequency to be emitted beyond the bounds of the galaxy?


Jan 12, 2019
@S_E_U.
Off topic: Are you aware that someone has copied your user name by modifying its spelling by using a capital i in place of a small L in the 4th letter in the user name RealityCheck? If that was YOU in that forum, you were quite abusive towards Shootist. I think that it wasn't YOU, but an imposter using an imitation of your name. It used the / key a few times to make it seem more genuine.
No, mate, it WAS me. As I just posted to you in the other thread, I suspect your monitor screen had a tiny speck of light-reflecting 'smudge' at just the right/wrong place to 'break' the 'black line' of the lower case "l", making "l" look like lower case "i".

ps: I suspect this because that sort of thing has happened on my monitor from time to time. But since I always double check my 'reading' of others' posts, I usually catch it before jumping to the sort of reaction you just did, S_E_U.

pps: I WAS 'harsh' with Shootist; but I clearly explained why in the relevant post. :)

Jan 12, 2019
@RC
Without having gone back to read it, I suppose you had good enough reason to say to Shootist what you had said. I was just a bit taken aback by it and thought that it didn't "sound" like the RealityCheck we all know.
But thanks for confirming that it was you and not someone imitating you.

Jan 12, 2019
The article seems to emphasise that there is a Black Hole nearby. Is the presence of the BH a crucial necessity for the Magnetar/Pulsar shooting off FRBs? Or is the BHs nearness merely coincidence? Are there other Magnetar/Pulsars doing the same with or without the presence of other BHs?


>Egg.....I see what you're driving at, maybe wondering something like how wide the band of FRB may be, if it's conelike, or a torus or whatever other parameter a single body field can create. These are very long wave length frequencies, very low energy.

There are a few entire galaxies that are seen in mostly radio frequency, unlike most galaxies that are seen mostly in visible light as the dominant wavelength of EM, leaves me to wondering what could be occluding other wavelengths acting like a filter allowing only radio frequency to be emitted beyond the bounds of the galaxy?

says Benni
-contd-

Jan 12, 2019
The thread appears to be devolving into "nutjob mysteries in physorg and beyond."

Jan 12, 2019
-contd-
@Benni
Assuming that it is round like a globe, and if the Magnetar is spinning that fast, then it is possible that FRBs are also being "thrown about" in all directions and the presence of a BH is inconsequential, unless the BH's influence is somehow causing the Magnetar to spin even faster. But if the BH had that kind of influence on its spin rate, perhaps (depending on the distance between Magnetar and BH), might it be that FRB material are also being pulled in and absorbed by said Black Hole? If that be the case, then the BH could be devouring the Magnetar/Pulsar as it spins and throws off more material towards the BH. Just conjecturing.

Jan 12, 2019
The standard gravity wave detection theory
two neutron stars in orbit
implies merging into a blackhole
as
the theory states
that
two magnetars in orbit
are
two pulsars in orbit
are
two neutron stars in orbit
merging into a blackhole
which
if this theory is correct
is
why there is a blackhole
in
the presence of this magnatar
because
theory also says
a
Neutron star collapses into a blackhole

Jan 12, 2019
"from a magnetar—a rotating, dense, dead star with a strong magnetic field—that is located near the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy...........separated by a distance of only 0.3 light-years"

the presence of a BH is inconsequential, unless the BH's influence is somehow causing the Magnetar to spin even faster. But if the BH had that kind of influence on its spin rate, perhaps (depending on the distance between Magnetar and BH), might it be that FRB material are also being pulled in and absorbed by said Black Hole?


>Egg......but the biggest problem with the BH theory is that one has never been located at SgrA* as per :

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

Noting the 7th photo frame from the top of the page of this link & the statement of the caption right next to that high resolution near infrared PICTURE, the span of 0,3 ly of that field of stars is within the distance of the FRB origination.


Jan 12, 2019
>Egg,

Noting the 7th photo frame from the top of the page of this link & the statement of the caption right next to that high resolution near infrared PICTURE, the span of 0,3 ly of that field of stars is within the distance of the FRB origination.
..........then note also the radio wavelength pics & simulations below the 7th photo frame indicate nothing with regard to an existing BH at SgrA* that indicates an object at that point could affect the function of a Magnetar's FRBs, instead they had to dub in a simulation using a 5 point star to indicate where SgrA* should be in the 10th photo frame.

In short, the entire theory that a BH at SgrA* is responsible for how this magnetar functions simply does not stand up under the withering evidence that no BH exists where Pearlman needs it to explain his theory about these FRBs.


Jan 12, 2019
I'm just wondering
The standard gravity wave detection theory
two neutron stars in orbit
implies merging into a blackhole
as
the theory states
that
two magnetars in orbit
are
two pulsars in orbit
are
two neutron stars in orbit
merging into a blackhole
which
if this theory is correct
is
why there is a blackhole
in
the presence of this magnatar
because
theory also says
a
Neutron star collapses into a blackhole

If this a hole in one

Jan 12, 2019
].......and don't stop there, ask me how many chainsaws I own & use for cutting down renewable fuel sources for my woodstoves & fireplace? Well, why don't I just tell you, four.

Dang.. I only have 2.
And by the way Whyguy, in case you've forgotten to bring it the the attention of the chatroom......I built the house I live in, almost 4k ft².

Actually, I WASN't aware of that... WIth your own 2 hands?
I live high atop a hill facing west & during the day when the sun is shining I can shut down every heating system in the house even when it's zero outside.

I just face West - no hill, but I can see the golf course club house...
I can't see my nearest neighbor.

That means you don't associate with them.
Anything else you'd like to ... bring to the attention of the chatroom that I may have missed from past chats I've had with you?

They weren't with me, per se.
Just Benni braggadocio...

Jan 12, 2019


In short, the entire theory that a BH at SgrA* is responsible for how this magnetar functions simply does not stand up under the withering evidence that no BH exists where Pearlman needs it to explain his theory about these FRBs.


Which is an outright lie, and ignores the actual evidence. Stop lying, weirdo.



Jan 12, 2019
.and don't stop there, ask me how many chainsaws I own & use for cutting down renewable fuel sources for my woodstoves & fireplace? Well, why don't I just tell you, four.

Dang.. I only have 2.


And by the way Whyguy, in case you've forgotten to bring it the the attention of the chatroom......I built the house I live in, almost 4k ft².


Actually, I WASN't aware of that... WIth your own 2 hands?
.....only have 2

I live high atop a hill facing west & during the day when the sun is shining I can shut down every heating system in the house even when it's zero outside.


I can't see my nearest neighbor.


That means you don't associate with them.
for the most part, yes

Anything else you'd like to ... bring to the attention of the chatroom that I may have missed from past chats I've had with you?


They weren't with me, per se.
Just Benni braggadocio...
..it ain't braggin' when you can do it, I did it.


Jan 12, 2019
.it ain't braggin' when you can do it, I did it.


And it isn't bragging when you claim to be a nuclear engineer, and don't even understand what a half-life is! It is just plain hilarious.

Jan 12, 2019
.it ain't braggin' when you can do it, I did it.


And it isn't bragging when you claim to be a nuclear engineer, and don't even understand what a half-life is! It is just plain hilarious.


What's hilarious is YOU trying to explain how a neutron going through beta decay has a radioactive half life decay rate. You still haven't figured out that neutron beta decay has nothing to do with atomic half life radioactive decay no matter how many times I explain it to you, so I've just given up taking it up with you anymore.

Jan 12, 2019
.it ain't braggin' when you can do it, I did it.


And it isn't bragging when you claim to be a nuclear engineer, and don't even understand what a half-life is! It is just plain hilarious.


What's hilarious is YOU trying to explain how a neutron going through beta decay has a radioactive half life decay rate. You still haven't figured out that neutron beta decay has nothing to do with atomic half life radioactive decay no matter how many times I explain it to you, so I've just given up taking it up with you anymore.


Dickhead. A neutron has a half-life. As measured. And as you've been linked to numerous times. You are a clueless oaf. Want me to quote some of your previous stuff ups on this sublect. you moron? Say the word, D-K boy.

Jan 12, 2019
As threatened;

Benni said;
If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Half its mass would be gone! Lol.

Jan 12, 2019
As threatened;

Benni said;
If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Half its mass would be gone! Lol.
......and there's half of a neutron left? Tell us, if half of a neutron's "mass would be gone", describe to us the hypothetical 1/2 mass that supposedly remains?

Jan 12, 2019
......and there's half of a neutron left? Tell us, if half of a neutron's "mass would be gone", describe to us the hypothetical 1/2 mass that supposedly remains?


Hahahahaha. That is not what half-life means, you cretin! The half-life is the time it takes for 50% of a sample of particles to decay into something else. The specific case of free neutron decay says that 50% of an initial sample of neutrons will decay, in 10.3 minutes, into protons, electrons and electron antineutrinos. Jesus!

http://hyperphysi...ton.html

Scroll down to the fourth box. How many times? Half a neutron! Lol, what a pillock.

Jan 12, 2019
@jonesdave.

Careful, mate. The subtle difference is that any ONE atom in a bulk sample of radioactive atoms (such as Uranium) in the SAME conditions as the REST of the atoms in that sample, does have a statistical 'half life' period/chance of decaying to another isotope/atom. However, FREE Neutrons in any 'sample' may be in DIFFERENT MOTIONAL (ie, speed) STATES which may affect ANY ONE Neutron DIFFERENTLY...such as causing more or less TIME-DILATION effects DEPENDING STRICTLY on the SPEED involved in each instance. That makes the FREE Neutron sample context and the usual radioactive ATOM bulk sample contexts subtly different...and hence the original 'half-life' perspective in the former context is NOT advisable; since it may mislead because they ARE different contexts and the half-life aspect does not actually help the actual understanding of what is happening that is different between the two contexts. In short: beware simplistic cross-application of labels/perspectives. :)

Jan 12, 2019
^^^^Oh do f*** off you useless oaf! The cretin Benni is saying that half the bloody mass will disappear. You agree, do you? In which case, you are as thick as him. And I don't need lessons from tosspots like you. Believe me; I understand this far better than you do. Go away.

Jan 12, 2019
That is not what half-life means, you cretin! The half-life is the time it takes for 50% of a sample of particles to decay into something else. The specific case of free neutron decay says that 50% of an initial sample of neutrons will decay, in 10.3 minutes
.......dead wrong, what you just described is NOT beta decay rate of a neutron.

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.

The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay with not a particle of concern what other neutrons around it are doing. Any other neutrons in the vicinity have no effect on the 14.7 beta decay rate of any other neutron anywhere else in the entire Universe & certainly not about a phony 10.1 minute half life.

Jan 12, 2019
@jonedave.
^^^^Oh do f*** off you useless oaf! The cretin Benni is saying that half the bloody mass will disappear. You agree, do you? In which case, you are as thick as him. And I don't need lessons from tosspots like you. Believe me; I understand this far better than you do. Go away.
Please don't start attributing/associating things to/with me which I have neither stated nor agreed with, jd. Obviously I do NOT, and NEVER HAVE, agreed with such an obvious 'Reductio ad absurdum' fallback by Benni. My ONLY observations were re the 'half LIFE' aspect per se being argued between you and Benni, as I have made clear all along. :)

ps: @jd, please in future try harder to read/understand (my posts especially) properly so as to forestall such obvious misunderstandings/mistaken-impressions based STRAWMAN temptations on your part. Thanks. :)

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni
"Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds)".https://en.wikipe...on_decay

Your words: "The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay"

No. 14 minutes and 42 seconds it the mean lifetime. It could be shorter or longer than 14 minutes and 42 seconds.

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni
"Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds); therefore the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) = 0.693) is 611.0±1.0 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds)."
https://en.wikipe.../Neutron

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni
"Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds)".https://en.wikipe...on_decay


Hey jimbo, don't get your undies all up in a wad over the few seconds differences that are measured between the three types of measurement techniques for neutron beta decay. So here they are:

Magnetic Bottle measurement= =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

.....as you can see your textbook at Wiki of 14.42 minutes is the least accurate of the three different techniques used for beta decay measurement.

Your words: "The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay"
No. 14 minutes and 42 seconds it the mean lifetime. It could be shorter or longer than 14 minutes and 42 seconds.


Sure, using which measurement technique?


Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you don't even understand what "mean" means. Hopeless.

Jan 12, 2019
therefore the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) = 0.693) is 611.0±1.0 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds)


More bad news for you jimbo, the above statement from Wiki has NOTHING to do with any of the three measurement techniques I listed for you. The specifications for those three measurement devices are online, look them up, nothing in those specs about "half life"

If you average the three different outcomes of the three different devices used to measure beta decay you get 14.71 minutes. So now you probably want to argue about 0.01 of a second?

@Benni you don't even understand what "mean" means. Hopeless.
.....and you think it means half the neutrons decayed above 14.7 minutes & half decayed below 14.7 minutes, right? I just explained "average" in the previous paragraph & it's not what you imagine in your tiny Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Jan 12, 2019
Again you said "The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay"

You are saying the neutron will decay in under 14.7 minutes which is wrong. It may decay before 14.7 or after. It's an average.


Jan 12, 2019
Benni 1* !!!

Reference to Sagittarius A* which Benni 1* believes doesn't exist.
And 1 star is Benni 1*'s favorite rating to give and get!

:D

Jan 12, 2019
Again you said "The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay"

You are saying the neutron will decay in under 14.7 minutes
.....no, you said that, you said that not me.

It may decay before 14.7 or after. It's an average.
......meaning you think half decay above 14.7 minutes & half decay below 14.7 minutes?

Jan 12, 2019
Sure enough Benni 1* gave me 1 star. I gave him a 5.

Good boy!

Jan 12, 2019
Hey Benni 1*---try writing outside the quotes.

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni then what do you mean by "it will within 14.7 minutes decay"

Jan 12, 2019
jimmybobber---

Look you evened out Benni 1* and my ratings at 3. Awesome--thanks!

Jan 12, 2019
So I did the same for you. ;)

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni then what do you mean by "it will within 14.7 minutes decay"


Look at the instrumentation data I gave you above, this:

Magnetic Bottle measurement= =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

The Magneto-grav trap is the most accurate at 14.65 minutes.

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you just proved yourself false.
You said "it will within 14.7 minutes decay"
yet now you give us data that it can decay in 14.8 minutes.
Do you not realize all those values are averages?

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you just proved yourself false.
You said "it will within 14.7 minutes decay"
yet now you give us data that it can decay in 14.8 minutes.
Do you not realize all those values are averages?


No, I didn't give you any "data", it comes from the manufacturer of the device type of the three measurement techniques, they put out the "data". Isn't it just so nice to learn how this stuff is done? Now why don't you learn how to write equations instead of chicken scratching.

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you said
"Look at the instrumentation data I gave you"
then said "No, I didn't give you any "data""

Jan 12, 2019
@Benni claims to be a nuclear engineer but doesn't understand half-life is an average.

Need we really go on here? Why is anyone even talking to this asshole?

Jan 13, 2019
Beta decay

A type of radioactive decay
which an electron
and
neutrino
are emitted from an atomic nucleus
beta decay of a neutron
transforms it into a proton by the emission of an electron and neutrino
neither the electron nor its associated neutrino
exist
within the nucleus prior to beta decay
but
are created in the decay process
by this process
unstable atoms obtain
a
more stable ratio of protons to neutrons
the decaying due to beta decay
is
determined by its nuclear binding energy
Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force

Jan 13, 2019
The free neutron

Has a mass of 1.674927471×10−27 kg
a
mean square radius of 0.8 fm
its spin -½ Fermion
has no measurable electric charge
the neutron is unaffected by electric fields
the neutron has a magnetic moment
the neutron is influenced by magnetic fields
The neutron's magnetic moment
has a negative value
because
Its orientation is opposite to the neutron's spin
a free neutron is unstable
that
by
beta decay
Decays to a proton electron and antineutrino

Jan 13, 2019
Electric and magnetic fields

Theory of Electromagnetic fields
where
electric fields
by virtue of spin
emits a magnetic field
despite this theory
the neutron
has no measurable electric field
the neutron is unaffected by electric fields
the neutron has a magnetic moment
the neutron is influenced by magnetic fields
Realy!
despite no electric field
has a magnetic field
by which neutrons are effected by magnetic fields
as
electrons encircle magnetic fields
encircling electrons are a flow of electrons
by definition
an electric current
so
what
created this magnetic field
because
spinning electrons electric field
produces a magnetic field
is
consequently
this magnetic field of the electron
so
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field

Jan 13, 2019
Electric and magnetic fields
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field


Neutrons are not elementary particles, electrons are...
Your conclusion is wrong as they know why there is a magnetic moment.

From Wiki

The existence of the neutron's magnetic moment indicates the neutron is not an elementary particle. For an elementary particle to have an intrinsic magnetic moment, it must have both spin and electric charge. The neutron has spin 1/2 ħ, but it has no net charge. The existence of the neutron's magnetic moment was puzzling and defied a correct explanation until the quark model for particles was developed in the 1960s. The neutron is composed of three quarks, and the magnetic moments of these elementary particles combine to give the neutron its magnetic moment.

Jan 13, 2019
Benni claims to be a nuclear engineer but doesn't understand half-life is an average.
......schneibo, not in beta decay it isn't. Beta Decay is not MEASURED in units of half-life, but of course how would an old technology computer programmer guy like you know that? And likewise why would we expect an Anthropologist like jonesy or yet another guy who doesn't know how to write equations, jimbobopper.

Hey schneibo, look at the specifications for these three device types used for measuring neutron decay & explain to us how the measurement methods measure NEUTRON HALF LIFE? Can't do it can you? But I know you can't do it, and I also knew coming in that you have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve:

Magnetic Bottle measurement =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

The Magneto-grav trap is the most accurate at 14.65 minutes.


Jan 13, 2019
The existence of the neutron's magnetic moment was puzzling and defied a correct explanation until the quark model for particles was developed in the 1960s. The neutron is composed of three quarks


Just for your information, the existence of "quarks" is purely theoretical, none have ever been isolated to prove their existence.

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni
...
In short, the entire theory that a BH at SgrA* is responsible for how this magnetar functions simply does not stand up under the withering evidence that no BH exists where Pearlman needs it to explain his theory about these FRBs.


Conclusive evidence...

In a paper published October 31, 2018, the discovery of conclusive evidence that Sagittarius A* is a black hole was announced. Using the GRAVITY interferometer and the four telescopes of the Very Large Telescope (VLT) to create a virtual telescope 130 metres in diameter, astronomers detected clumps of gas moving at about 30% of the speed of light. Emission from highly energetic electrons very close to the black hole was visible as three prominent bright flares. These exactly match theoretical predictions for hot spots orbiting close to a black hole of four million solar masses. The flares are thought to originate from magnetic interactions in the very hot gas orbiting very close to Sagittarius A*.


Jan 13, 2019

Hey schneibo, look at the specifications for these three device types used for measuring neutron decay & explain to us how the measurement methods measure NEUTRON HALF LIFE? Can't do it can you? But I know you can't do it, and I also knew coming in that you have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve:

Magnetic Bottle measurement =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

The Magneto-grav trap is the most accurate at 14.65 minutes.


@Benni

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).

J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D86, 010001 (2012)

So the Particle Data Group is wrong ?

Jan 13, 2019
The existence of the neutron's magnetic moment was puzzling and defied a correct explanation until the quark model for particles was developed in the 1960s. The neutron is composed of three quarks


Just for your information, the existence of "quarks" is purely theoretical, none have ever been isolated to prove their existence.


@Benni

Ok...
So QCD is just a fairy tale as BH's ?

Are you a supporter of the Electric Universe ?

Also about the Particle Data Group
he Particle Data Group (PDG) is an international collaboration that provides a comprehensive summary of Particle Physics and related areas of Cosmology: the Review of Particle Physics.
The PDG collaboration consists of 227 authors from 159 institutions in 24 countries. It is led by a coordination team based mostly at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), which has served as PDG's headquarters since inception.

Jan 13, 2019
The existence of the neutron's magnetic moment was puzzling and defied a correct explanation until the quark model for particles was developed in the 1960s. The neutron is composed of three quarks


Just for your information, the existence of "quarks" is purely theoretical, none have ever been isolated to prove their existence.


@Benni

Also, LHC produced QGP some years ago, not sure how is this purely theoretical.

Why would QCD work if this is not true ?


Jan 13, 2019
The Cat in the Hat

Dr Zeus and his three cats
if this theory of quarkians is correct
in threes they come
in positive and negativity of charge they come
A quark
in spin
of positive of charge
produces a magnetic field
that
is
identical
to a
quark
in spin
of negative charge magnetic field
as
it
is theorised
quarks have electric fields
as this is the theory of this neutrons neutrality
so
inside this neutron
lie
three quarks
three electric fields
three magnetic fields
in spin
because
be care full what you wish for
when
you invite
Dr Zeus and his three cats

Jan 13, 2019
The Cat in the Hat

Dr Zeus and his three cats
so
inside this neutron
lie
three quarks
three electric fields
three magnetic fields
in spin
because
be care full what you wish for
when
you invite
Dr Zeus and his three cats


@granville583762

What are you trying to say exactly ?

Jan 13, 2019
Dr Zeus and his three cats
Electric and magnetic fields
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field


kl31415> Neutrons are not elementary particles, electrons are...
Your conclusion is wrong as they know why there is a magnetic moment

As
Dr Zeus and his three cats
is
my way of describing
the
way protons and scrumptious electrons
Exists in this vacuum

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415

Simply
spinning electric fields produce magnetic fields
as
a magnetic field does not exist
until
an electric field is in motion
as
in nucleons and electrons
by
Virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields

Jan 13, 2019
Dr Zeus and his three cats
Electric and magnetic fields
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field


kl31415> Neutrons are not elementary particles, electrons are...
Your conclusion is wrong as they know why there is a magnetic moment

As
Dr Zeus and his three cats
is
my way of describing
the
way protons and scrumptious electrons
Exists in this vacuum


I am not familiar with Dr.Zeus and his three cats, we had Professor Baltazar.

I still do not understand what are you trying to say.
Protons and electrons are not a part of the same family as one is a baryon and one a lepton...

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, simply electric fields by virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415

Simply
spinning electric fields produce magnetic fields
as
a magnetic field does not exist
until
an electric field is in motion
as
in nucleons and electrons
by
Virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields


So how does this disprove quarks ?

Or is the magnetic moment of an uncharged particle the mystery here ?


Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, It matters not
where
this electric field resides
as
in the atom
in the neutron
proton
electron
all these atomic life
have spin
and
electric fields
and
so
in this vacuum
where these life forms live
by virtue of their spin
have magnetic fields
so
to this neutron
it cannot have a magnetic field
if
it does not firstly have a electric field in motion
by
Virtue of its spin

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, simply electric fields by virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields

Indeed, this is how the neutron get its magnetic moment.

Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero. The magnetic moment of the neutron is an indication of its quark substructure and internal charge distribution.

In the quark model for hadrons, the neutron is composed of one up quark (charge +2/3 e) and two down quarks (charge −1/3 e).[52] The magnetic moment of the neutron can be modeled as a sum of the magnetic moments of the constituent quarks.[54] The calculation assumes that the quarks behave like pointlike Dirac particles, each having their own magnetic moment. Simplistically, the magnetic moment of the neutron can be viewed as resulting from the vector sum of the three quark magnetic moments, plus the orbital magnetic moments caused by the movement of the three charged quarks within the neutron.

They seem to be quite sure of this...

Jan 13, 2019
Emission from highly energetic electrons very close to the black hole was visible as three prominent bright flares. These exactly match theoretical predictions for hot spots orbiting close to a black hole of four million solar masses
........so why don't they simply snap a picture of the BH if it is so big? Can't you just imagine how large an area of background stars such a huge mass would block from behind it?

So the Particle Data Group is wrong ?
.......yes, it is wrong in the manner you're portraying it.

Beta decay is not measured in half life radioactive decay units & therefore have nothing to do with with a 10.1 particle decay rate within a random sampling. Your problem is the same as jimbo, schneibo, etc, you don't understand RANDOM SAMPLING of particle decay it has absolutely zero to do with the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free unbound neutron.

Why would QCD work if this is not true ?
What makes you think it does work?

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, you cannot
have
a magnetic field
unless
you firstly have an electric field
so
this neutron
is not neutral
as
these three theorised quarks have electric fields
each electric field has a magnetic field
as
this neutron
has
a detected electric field
which
proves
it is not neutral
and
it explains
why
this neutron has a magnetic field
as
more sensitive experiments
will
reveal
This neutron deflected in an electric field

Jan 13, 2019
Protons and electrons are not a part of the same family


You don't know both are ELEMENTARY PARTICLES?

In the quark model for hadrons, the neutron is composed of one up quark (charge +2/3 e) and two down quarks (charge −1/3 e).


WikiPedia sources can MODEL quarks anyway they want, the fact remains that no one working at the LHC facility has ever isolated a QUARK. Play this game of "Let's pretend" all you want, until there's observational evidence it only remains an unproven model of fantasy.

Jan 13, 2019
These theoretical quarks
kl31415, simply electric fields by virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields

Indeed, this is how the neutron get its magnetic moment.

Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero. The magnetic moment of the neutron is an indication of its quark substructure and internal charge distribution.

This detectable neutron electric field
is why this neutron is neutral
because
it is weak
A weak field
does not indicate the existance of quarks
at
this presice moment
we
have not acertained
what
happens to a free neutron after 14.7minutes
the only person
who is discussing this point
is Benni
because
you must see the hilarity of it
as
we think a neutrons quarks are a done deal
but not knowing
Beta decay of a neutron after 14.7minutes
as of August 13, 2018
you are new here
Still wet behind the ears

Jan 13, 2019
The Proton past the coulomb barrier

The Relevant Point
This detectable neutron electric field
is why this neutron is neutral

This neutron is neutral simply by its weak electric field
because
magnetic fields can pass through structures
whereas electric fields cannot as In electric field shielding
because
this is the purpose of this Neutron
To allow the Proton past the coulomb barrier

Jan 13, 2019
Protons and electrons are not a part of the same family


You don't know both are ELEMENTARY PARTICLES?

In the quark model for hadrons, the neutron is composed of one up quark (charge +2/3 e) and two down quarks (charge −1/3 e).


WikiPedia sources can MODEL quarks anyway they want, the fact remains that no one working at the LHC facility has ever isolated a QUARK. Play this game of "Let's pretend" all you want, until there's observational evidence it only remains an unproven model of fantasy.


@Benni @granville583762

Deep inelastic scattering is not concrete evidence ?

Are you supporters of the Electric Universe Benni and granville583762 ?

Jan 13, 2019
@kl31415 Yes they are both Electric Universe supporters. They won't outright say it however.

Jan 13, 2019

This detectable neutron electric field
is why this neutron is neutral
This neutron is neutral simply by its weak electric field
because
magnetic fields can pass through structures
whereas electric fields cannot as In electric field shielding
because
this is the purpose of this Neutron
To allow the Proton past the coulomb barrier

@granville583762

Neutron radiation is often called indirectly ionizing radiation. It does not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (exciting an electron), because neutrons have no charge. However, neutron interactions are largely ionizing, for example when neutron absorption results in gamma emission and the gamma ray (photon) subsequently removes an electron from an atom, or a nucleus recoiling from a neutron interaction is ionized and causes more traditional subsequent ionization in other atoms.

So every school teaching this is teaching shit ?

Jan 13, 2019
@kl31415 Yes they are both Electric Universe supporters. They won't outright say it however.


@jimmybobber
It would be nice if they could be honest about it.

@Benni
I wonder how does a nuclear engineer apply physics, which he claims is bad science, in his daily job.
The physics you learnt in school would be the physics behind the Standard model and GR.

You don't know both are ELEMENTARY PARTICLES?


@Benni
Can you cite any research to support your statement that both proton and the electron are elementary particles ?


Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, this electric universe

Or as some would have it, EU
Metallic bonding
is a type of chemical bonding
that
arises from the electrostatic attractive force
between conduction electrons
of an electron cloud
of delocalized electrons and positively charged metal ions
described as the sharing of free electrons
among a structure of positively charged ions
as
metallic bonding
accounts for many physical properties
of metals
strength
ductility
thermal
electrical resistivity and conductivity
as kl31415
what is your disbelief
of this electric electron
as you walk
suspended
in this vacuum
between the covalent atoms of the ground
and
the covalent atoms in your rubber soles
on this electromagnetic field
This electric universe

Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, this electric universe

Or as some would have it, EU
Metallic bonding
is a type of chemical bonding
that
arises from the electrostatic attractive force
between conduction electrons
of an electron cloud
of delocalized electrons and positively charged metal ions
described as the sharing of free electrons
among a structure of positively charged ions
as
metallic bonding
accounts for many physical properties
of metals
strength
ductility
thermal
electrical resistivity and conductivity
as kl31415
what is your disbelief
of this electric electron
as you walk
suspended
in this vacuum
between the covalent atoms of the ground
and
the covalent atoms in your rubber soles
on this electromagnetic field
This electric universe


@granville5837621

How do you explain the successful application of GR in our everyday lives if it is wrong ?

Jan 13, 2019
Deep inelastic scattering is not concrete evidence ?


"Deep" into what? What does "deep" mean? What are you scattering? Presumably photons?

You don't know both are ELEMENTARY PARTICLES?

@Benni
Can you cite any research to support your statement that both proton and the electron are elementary particles ?
........my textbook I used in physics classes in Engineering School. Nothing in it about EU though.


Jan 13, 2019


Beta decay is not measured in half life radioactive decay units & therefore have nothing to do with with a 10.1 particle decay rate within a random sampling. Your problem is the same as jimbo, schneibo, etc, you don't understand RANDOM SAMPLING of particle decay it has absolutely zero to do with the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free unbound neutron.



@Benni

Would you elaborate please ?

What do you mean by 'radioactive decay units' ?
What are these units ?

What units is Beta decay measured in then ?

Why is Beta decay different with measurements and units from other types of radioactive decay ?


Jan 13, 2019
Deep inelastic scattering is not concrete evidence ?


"Deep" into what? What does "deep" mean? What are you scattering? Presumably photons?

You don't know both are ELEMENTARY PARTICLES?

@Benni
Can you cite any research to support your statement that both proton and the electron are elementary particles ?
........my textbook I used in physics classes in Engineering School. Nothing in it about EU though.



Would you be able to give any reference to this please ?

What is the name of the textbook and who were the authors ?

If it was a textbook, what year was that from ?

@Benni
Deep inelastic scattering is scattering leptons on hadrons.

Jan 13, 2019
Our daily bread
kl31415> How do you explain the successful application of GR in our everyday lives if it is wrong ?

As the time curve is practically flat till over 80% of 299792458m/s
the mathematical effects have little effect
mathematically
the ceasium clock, being mechanical is effected by gravitational fields
there by effecting the oscillations, not time
as
it is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second
This has been gone into in great detail
as a grandfather clock on the moon is not time dilation
as a caesium clock on the moon is not time dilation
it
would
be interesting
what these effects are in our daily lives
Effect our daily bread

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni
"Although protons were originally considered fundamental or elementary particles, they are now known to be composed of three valence quarks: two up quarks of charge +2/3e and one down quark of charge –1/3e." https://en.wikipe...i/Proton

When was your book written? Can you give us the author and title please. I'll look for it online.

Jan 13, 2019
Our daily bread
kl31415> How do you explain the successful application of GR in our everyday lives if it is wrong ?

As the time curve is practically flat till over 80% of 299792458m/s
the mathematical effects have little effect
mathematically
the ceasium clock, being mechanical is effected by gravitational fields
there by effecting the oscillations, not time
as
it is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second
This has been gone into in great detail
as a grandfather clock on the moon is not time dilation
as a caesium clock on the moon is not time dilation
it
would
be interesting
what these effects are in our daily lives


GPS
Electromagnets
Cathod ray tube TV's

More in the astronomers daily life - gravitational lensing
Funny how the science says the opposite of what you claim about time dilation...

Jan 13, 2019
@granville583762

Time dilation -
Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster.

Also apparently confirmed through multiple experiments...

Jan 13, 2019
Obfuscation in TIME
@granville583762
Time dilation -
Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster.
Also apparently confirmed through multiple experiments...

It is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second

The clock is going slow
due to gravitational acceleration
of course
when you bring the two clocks together
the slow clock shows its discrepancy
because
as
both clocks
are now influencing
the same gravitational acceleration
both clocks
will oscillate in sync

Jan 13, 2019
Obfuscation in time

Is there is anyone in this vacuum
who could explain
when gravity effects oscillations
where 9billion
of these oscillations
equals one second
What has this got anything to do with time?

Jan 13, 2019
Obfuscation in time

You could equally count the oscillations as the bow is drawn across the violin strings
gravity effects the oscillation of the string
where this 9billion ear wrenching screech = one second
put this violin on the moon
would you still talk of time dilation
The string
held together by natures molecules
molecules constructed of atoms
oscillating as the speed of light

It makes no never mind
varying oscillations due to the force of acceleration
Is not time dilation

Jan 13, 2019
@Granville You are so wrong.
How would you explain the difference in elapsed time measured by two observers with a velocity difference relative to each other and they both have constant velocities?
No acceleration there Granville.
https://en.wikipe...dilation

Jan 13, 2019
Jimmybobber, in time and space

In this vacuum
in this velocity
acceleration is changing velocity
as
in this universe
an object in motion
travels in curvature of motion
as circular velocity is acceleration
because
it is changing velocity
as gravity is acceleration
is changing velocity
velocity is acceleration
in this vacuum
in this universe
there is no distinction
beween
velocity and acceleration
as
there is only one velocity in this vacuum
that is acceleration
and
so
my friend, jimmybobber
this atomic clock
you are holding
in this vacuum
is in accelerative motion
thereby
effecting the oscillations
these 9billion oscillations
are no longer
telling the true time
as
Jam in your watch will achieve the same results

Jan 13, 2019
Obfuscation in TIME
Also apparently confirmed through multiple experiments...
It is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second



But obviously, in the real world, it is not trivial how much time it would take to reach the 9 bill. oscillations and this difference does have an impact, otherwise there would be no need to use GR for GPS calculations.


Jan 13, 2019
Can you not see, kl31415
Obfuscation in TIME
Also apparently confirmed through multiple experiments...
It is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second



But obviously, in the real world, it is not trivial how much time it would take to reach the 9 bill. oscillations and this difference does have an impact, otherwise there would be no need to use GR for GPS calculations.

Can you not see
It is not time you are correcting, you are simply adjusting your clock
Time has not changed

Jan 13, 2019
Jimmybobber,
In this vacuum
in this velocity
acceleration is changing velocity
as
in this universe
an object in motion
travels in curvature of motion
as circular velocity is acceleration
because
it is changing velocity
as gravity is acceleration
is changing velocity
velocity is acceleration
in this vacuum
in this universe
there is no distinction
between
velocity and acceleration
as
there is only one velocity in this vacuum
that is acceleration

You're statement does make too much sense, I thought velocity and acceleration are very different terms.
Can you provide a reference that would support your statements please ?
I'd like to read more about where your understanding comes from.

I'm just a stupid radiographer and like to read about these things, but tend to trust the general scientific consensus. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting GR, would be interested to see what evidence could you provide to support your views.

Jan 13, 2019
Obfuscation in TIME
Also apparently confirmed through multiple experiments...
It is the clock counting 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations = one second
It is immaterial as to the time it takes to reach these 9billion oscillations
As it is still one second



But obviously, in the real world, it is not trivial how much time it would take to reach the 9 bill. oscillations and this difference does have an impact, otherwise there would be no need to use GR for GPS calculations.


And also SR. GR, due to the satellites being in high orbit, and experiencing lower gravity. This amounts to about + 45 microeconds per day.
SR, due to the velocity of the craft with respect to the observer. This amounts to - 7 microseconds per day.
Therefore there is a total correction for relativity of + 38 microseconds per day.

http://www.astron...gps.html

Jan 13, 2019
Can you not see, kl31415

Can you not see
It is not time you are correcting, you are simply adjusting your clock
Time has not changed


I'm not sure about this - time has not changed. I don't know enough about this, hehe.

What I understand from GR is -

The passage of time for you(in orbit) and me(on Earth) is different. This is measurable and the reason the correction is needed.

You are implying that they apply GR to GPS calculations to adjust a clock, that doesn't make too much sense in my head.

Why would they do that ?
Why would these equations work if you are saying that it is incorrect ?


Jan 13, 2019
You're statement does make too much sense,


Which is a kinder way of saying that he hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. As usual.

Jan 13, 2019
You're statement does make too much sense,


Which is a kinder way of saying that he hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. As usual.


I just realised that it's missing a 'n't' there...

I remember very vividly failing a physics test in primary school because of mixing the two terms... :S

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni the Burke,

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.


Wrong, dumbo. As pointed out, that is the average lifetime of a single neutron. Look up the word 'average'. And, as also pointed out, the half-life is the mean (average) lifetime x ln2.
You really are thick, aren't you? (rhetorical).


Jan 13, 2019
Take pride in your trade, kl31415
kl31415> I'm just a stupid radiographer and like to read about these things, but tend to trust the general scientific consensus. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting GR, would be interested to see what evidence could you provide to support your views.

As a radiographer, kl31415
your job provides a valuable service
in hip x-rays
in total hip orthography
in metallosis cyst diagnosis
in bimetal separation in metallosis bone absorption
of chromium cobalt particular wear
so
Don't look unkindly on your trade
kl31415

Jan 13, 2019
You're statement does make too much sense,


Which is a kinder way of saying that he hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. As usual.


I just realised that it's missing a 'n't' there...

I remember very vividly failing a physics test in primary school because of mixing the two terms... :S


Ahhh, I actually read it as 'doesn't', even though you wrote 'does'!

Jan 13, 2019

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.


Wrong, ......... that is the average lifetime of a single neutron. Look up the word 'average'.


> kl31415 jonesdave.........employing fantasies of Pop- Cosmology to engage in war on science & neutron beta decay.


Jan 13, 2019

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.


Wrong, ......... that is the average lifetime of a single neutron. Look up the word 'average'.


> kl31415 jonesdave.........employing fantasies of Pop- Cosmology to engage in war on science & neutron beta decay.



@Benni

Could you please respond to the questions I posted earlier ? Thank you


Jan 13, 2019
Take pride in your trade, kl31415
kl31415> I'm just a stupid radiographer and like to read about these things, but tend to trust the general scientific consensus. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting GR, would be interested to see what evidence could you provide to support your views.

As a radiographer, kl31415
your job provides a valuable service
in hip x-rays
in total hip orthography
in metallosis cyst diagnosis
in bimetal separation in metallosis bone absorption
of chromium cobalt particular wear
so
Don't look unkindly on your trade
kl31415


Radiotherapy is actually my specialty and clinical experience, although I am now in the industry, I don't look unkindly on it at all, could of been clearer, was just saying I'm not the smartiest radiographer out there ;)

Jan 13, 2019

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.


Wrong, ......... that is the average lifetime of a single neutron. Look up the word 'average'.


> kl31415 jonesdave.........employing fantasies of Pop- Cosmology to engage in war on science & neutron beta decay.



Nope, countering scientific ignorance with facts.

Jan 13, 2019
I'm glad you are settled in your trade, kl31415
but
on phys.org
you have entered another world
down
the rabbit hole have you fallen
into
Alice in wonderland
where
everything is topsy turvy
just
like dear Albert
in
his Alice in wonderland of relativity
with
The granville touch

Jan 13, 2019

Apparently it will be forever impossible for you to comprehend that an unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.


Wrong, ......... that is the average lifetime of a single neutron. Look up the word 'average'.


> kl31415 jonesdave.........employing fantasies of Pop- Cosmology to engage in war on science & neutron beta decay.



Nope, countering scientific ignorance with facts.


What you mean to say is countering science with the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology which proposes silly fantasies like the existence of infinite gravity at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass countering the Immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics.

Jan 13, 2019
You're statement does make too much sense,


Which is a kinder way of saying that he hasn't got a bloody clue what he's talking about. As usual.


I just realised that it's missing a 'n't' there...

I remember very vividly failing a physics test in primary school because of mixing the two terms... :S


Ahhh, I actually read it as 'doesn't', even though you wrote 'does'!


Hehe, yeah, I read it like that too :D

Jan 13, 2019

What you mean to say is countering science with the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology which proposes silly fantasies like the existence of infinite gravity at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass countering the Immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics.


Infinite gravity - who proposes this ?

Would you answer my questions please @Benni ?

Thank you

Jan 13, 2019
@kl31415 When Benni can't answer, because he is wrong, he defaults to his "infinite gravity" argument. Give it a few minutes and he'll bring up differential equations.

Jan 13, 2019
What you mean to say is countering science with the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology which proposes silly fantasies like the existence of infinite gravity at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass countering the Immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics.


Infinite gravity - who proposes this ?
......you've never read Pop-Cosmology's definition of black holes?

Would you answer my questions please @Benni ?

Thank you
.........I do, but you know so little about nuclear science. You have so far comprehended nothing about even so straight forward a discussion I've tried to have with you concerning BETA DECAY, so why bother with anything more?

Jan 13, 2019

Infinite gravity - who proposes this ?
......you've never read Pop-Cosmology's definition of

Would you answer my questions please @Benni ?

Thank you
.........I do, but you know so little about nuclear science. You have so far comprehended nothing about even so straight forward a discussion I've tried to have with you concerning BETA DECAY, so why bother with anything more?


@Benni

No, you've only answered a fraction of my questions.

Please answer my questions about Beta decay.


Beta decay is not measured in half life radioactive decay units & therefore have nothing to do with with a 10.1 particle decay rate within a random sampling...


@Benni

Would you elaborate please ?

What do you mean by 'radioactive decay units' ?
What are these units ?
What units is Beta decay measured in then ?

Why is Beta decay different with measurements and units from other types of radioactive decay ?

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni

Also -

What about those references to your textbook ?

Would you be able to give any reference to it please ? - regarding the proton being an elementary particle

What is the name of the textbook and who were the authors ?

If it was a textbook, what year was that from ?

Where does infinite gravity come from ?

There is no reference to infinite gravity in the definition of the black hole.


Jan 13, 2019
A moment in time

kl31415
In our knowledge
as where ever it lies
there are depths
that lie hidden
from other skills
of
no earthly connection
that when you consider time
that
as radiographer
as
in radiotherapy
radiotherapists know
of this topsy turvy world
that
as problems improve
they
are actually deteriorating
so
as you use your hidden knowledge
you know of this topsy turvy world
so
as our comments
appear to some
Incomprehensible
it
is because of no experience of this topsy turvy world
because
where this involves time
kl31415
when everyone corrects their clocks
kl31415
when everyone synchronises their clocks
it
makes no never mind
if
time actually dilates
or
time does not dilate
because
All clocks are synchronised

Jan 13, 2019
Hi @kl31415.

Before proceeding, I would like to make clear I am NOT 'taking
sides' in your exchange with Benni/others. This is a strictly impartial comment for your benefit; so that you will not be tempted to go beyond what mainstream itself actually knows/claims whenever you are countering Benni's/other's arguments/claims. Ok? :)

The Quark/Gluon 'particle/entity' concept is strictly for Modeling/Calculating 'convenience'; as quarks/gluons themselves have NOT been (and are assumed by said model itself NOT to be) separable/isolatable as actual real physically directly accessible/testable entities/particles per se (unlike, eg, electrons/photons have been). OK? :)

ps: Anyhow, everyone, good luck in your discussions/learning. In the meantime I'll also give you all more things to ponder for your own further cogitations/discussions: How does a "K-captured" Electron get incorporated into the Proton in order to produce a Neutron? How can captured Electron 'change' a 'Quark'? :)

Jan 13, 2019
There is no reference to infinite gravity in the definition of the black hole.
.....then you're still living in the world of 19th Century Cosmology. Here:

Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite.[81] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[82] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[83] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

.........your favorite textbook.

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni and then further down in the article
"The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[91] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities.[92][93]"
https://en.wikipe...gularity

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni (and @jimmybobber etc).
https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

"....In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[83] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."
That last phrase in that last sentence in that wiki article at least should be edited quick-smart by some 'worthy wiki 'contributor' to read: "...can thus be thought of as having MAXIMUM density". Else these sorts of futile arguments will keep going on and waste everyone's time/bandwidth due to such clearly naive/misleading wiki/textbook 'explanations'.

ps: Good luck and good thinking, everyone, in this New Year of further polite science/humanity discourse and discovery/learning for all (I hope). :)

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni from your own link:

"It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities."
https://en.wikipe...gularity

Jan 13, 2019
Infinite density without infinite gravity

kl31415, Infinite gravity - who proposes this
you could
equally ask
infinite density without infinite gravity
you
would do well to go direct to the source
the source
of
all Obfuscation
on
phys.org
the only
the one and only
the melodious one
JD
but
bewarned, kl31415
as
He doeth notereth unstandereth a wordereth I sayereth

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni from your own link:

"It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities."
https://en.wikipe...gularity


......but your Pop Cosmology textbook, or at least as close to one as you have ever gotten

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni And how because you realize you are wrong you get personal:
"......but your Pop Cosmology textbook, or at least as close to one as you have ever gotten"

Jan 13, 2019
Albert's gold standard of this vacuum

299792458m/s, the speed of light
for those who support dear Albert
in
his absolute velocity of the vacuum, the speed of light
when this clocks electrons in transition
oscillate
this electron
consists of 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass
as
you are probably aware
only photons
due
to being massless, travel at 299792458m/s
as
this 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass oscillates
with its electromagnetic field
this 9.1x10-31kg of inertial mass oscillating close to the speed of light
you have
this electron as an electron oscillating at nearly the speed of light
this electron transitioning at nearly the speed of light
and
on top of this dilemma
this electron, in time travel
in its caesium clock
a clock travelling nearly at the speed of light
have this electron moving nearly at the speed of light

As dear Albert would say
in triplicate
Nothing travels faster than light

Jan 13, 2019
@Benni And how because you realize you are wrong you get personal:
"......but your Pop Cosmology textbook, or at least as close to one as you have ever gotten"


What else am I to think when you don't even know how to write equations?

Jan 13, 2019
As dear Albert would say
in triplicate
Nothing travels faster than light

so my friends
something has to give
as we travel close to the speed of light
due
to the quantum of energy available to this electron
this time to transition has to slow down
these physical oscillations of this electron have to slow down
as this electron approaches the speed of light
as
the transiting slows
so does the time it takes to complete 9billion oscillations
as
9billion oscillations equal one second
and
so it is not time that has slowed
it is simply the time between each oscillation
the time between each transition
is slightly longer
if you want to tell the correct time
you have to reduce the number of oscillations
as velocity increases
as is constantly being pointed out
In this vacuum time remains constant

Jan 14, 2019
Hi @kl31415.

The Quark/Gluon 'particle/entity' concept is strictly for Modeling/Calculating 'convenience'; as quarks/gluons themselves have NOT been (and are assumed by said model itself NOT to be) separable/isolatable as actual real physically directly accessible/testable entities/particles per se (unlike, eg, electrons/photons have been).


Hi @RealityCheck

So you are saying that a number of research laboratories on this planet got it wrong ?

What have these guys been detecting then ?

What are these particles ? And why no one else has put in a different explanation ?

Are you able to provide any scientific support for your claims please ?

https://home.cern...t-result


Jan 14, 2019
What you mean to say is countering science with the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology which proposes silly fantasies like the existence of infinite gravity at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass countering the Immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics.


And the clueless cretin is back to his idiotic nonsense again. Surprise, surprise.
You cannot answer the questions asked of you due to not having a clue about the relevant science. You are just a sad, D-K affected nobody. You wouldn't recognise science if it bit you on the arse.
Here are real scientists, measuring the half-life of free neutrons;

Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al.
https://journals....D.5.1628 (1971)

Jan 14, 2019


"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite.[81] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[82] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[83] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

your favorite textbook.


@Benni
My favourite textbook seemed to be edited in your post Benni.

I fail to see this 'spacetime curvature (gravity)' in the text online.
I am not sure, but as I understand this gravity and spacetime curvature are not the same thing, but gravity is the effect of spacetime being curved.

Where does it say that spacetime curvature equals gravity ?

Jan 14, 2019
That last phrase in that last sentence in that wiki article at least should be edited quick-smart by some 'worthy wiki 'contributor' to read: "...can thus be thought of as having MAXIMUM density". Else these sorts of futile arguments will keep going on and waste everyone's time/bandwidth due to such clearly naive/misleading wiki/textbook 'explanations'.


@RealityCheck

Why is infinite density not correct/feasible ?

Would you be able to point me to a different source of information that you use please which disproves these theories ?


Jan 14, 2019

......but your Pop Cosmology textbook, or at least as close to one as you have ever gotten


@Benni

So Benni, would you please share the source of your information ?

And please, for the sake of the discussion answer these questions... Why are you evading to answer these ?

Beta decay is not measured in half life radioactive decay units & therefore have nothing to do with with a 10.1 particle decay rate within a random sampling...


@Benni

Would you elaborate please ?

What do you mean by 'radioactive decay units' ?
What are these units ?
What units is Beta decay measured in then ?

Why is Beta decay different with measurements and units from other types of radioactive decay ?

What about those references to your textbook ?

Would you be able to give any reference to it please ? - regarding the proton being an elementary particle

What is the name of the textbook and who were the authors ?

If it was a textbook, what year was that from ?

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni

I would really like to see the explanation for the Beta decay...

Not sure what's hard to understand there.

I am particularly interested in the different way of measurement and units in which this decay is measured.

Would you please answer my questions about this ?

Also your sources of information would greatly help, so please share them.

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni

I would really like to see the explanation for the Beta decay...

Not sure what's hard to understand there.

I am particularly interested in the different way of measurement and units in which this decay is measured.

Would you please answer my questions about this ?

Also your sources of information would greatly help, so please share them.


Benni's 'sources' will be his complete misunderstanding of all things scientific.
However, here is another link to one of my sources;

https://www2.lbl....3/2.html

But hey, what would the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory know?

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni

I would really like to see the explanation for the Beta decay...

Not sure what's hard to understand there.

I am particularly interested in the different way of measurement and units in which this decay is measured.

Would you please answer my questions about this ?

Also your sources of information would greatly help, so please share them.


Benni's 'sources' will be his complete misunderstanding of all things scientific.
However, here is another link to one of my sources;

https://www2.lbl....3/2.html

But hey, what would the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory know?


Yeah, a bunch crazy loons perpetuating the nonsense of 'unproven physics', right ?

That's the lab that houses the coordination team and acts as headquarters for the Particle Data Group :)


Jan 14, 2019
Yeah, a bunch crazy loons perpetuating the nonsense of 'unproven physics', right ?

That's the lab that houses the coordination team and acts as headquarters for the Particle Data Group :)


Indeed. However, how can you argue with logic such as this;

The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Or this;

.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

??

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni And how because you realize you are wrong you get personal:
"......but your Pop Cosmology textbook, or at least as close to one as you have ever gotten"


What else am I to think when you don't even know how to write equations?


@Benni

Would you be so kind and share some of the equations that prove your point ?

I, myself, won't be able to understand them, but as I work in the radiotherapy field, I am surrounded by a number of physicists with PHD in numerous areas. I am sure at least a few of them have a good understanding of differential and partial differential equations.

Will happily show the equations to them for an explanation.

Thanks

Jan 14, 2019
The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


Interesting statement.
If particles would decay in such manner, then we wouldn't need to calculate the mean lifetime as all decay would be happening at the exactly same time.


.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Are they saying that a neutron half-life would somehow mean that half of the neutron decays ?

I don't know any calculations about radioactive decays, but I remember from my school days that the theory was not really difficult to understand.

If they could answer the questions...

Jan 14, 2019
kl31415

The answers
to
infinite density
infinite gravity
lie
within
the formula
R = 2GM/C²
Where the minimum radius is the mass of the sun
R =3km
where
Gravity is zero at the centre of mass

Jan 14, 2019
So you are saying that a number of research laboratories on this planet got it wrong?


What are you talking about when you write "research laboratories......got it wrong"?

Fifty percent of my job description is the operation of a gamma radiation laboratory, & there is not one scintillation detector in our facility that has an opinion of it's own, all the opinions come from the one interpreting the results of the data. And yes, we also do research here as well, nothing like LL at Berkeley because we are a manufacturer, but it involves using all the same manner of data.

Hey mister radiation therapist, maybe you'd like to tell how many containers of quarks you have laying around on a shelf in some back room that you pull off the shelf from time to time to see if they've changed color or something. Or maybe you don't know a QUARK has never been isolated?

You have this penchant for demanding other people answer YOUR questions, but you always refuse answering theirs.


Jan 14, 2019
@Benni So you are the maintenance man.

Jan 14, 2019
My favourite textbook seemed to be edited in your post Benni.
I fail to see this 'spacetime curvature (gravity)' in the text online.
I am not sure, but as I understand this gravity and spacetime curvature are not the same thing, but gravity is the effect of spacetime being curved. Where does it say that spacetime curvature equals gravity?


I guess you're just not as much up to speed on Pop Cosmology as I had been giving you credit for.

Again I quote from your favorite & probably your ONLY textbook:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity becomes infinite."

I inserted "gravity" next to "spacetime curvature" so a novice like you wouldn't miss the appearance of the phrase "gravitational singularity" appearing just four words prior, I understand your limited reading skills & wanted to be certain you wouldn't make a disconnection, but you did anyway.

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni Editing quotes like that is very dishonest. Because you didn't use square brackets the reader assumes it was the original quote.

You should know this since you are so educated.

Jan 14, 2019
A Quark like Santa

With Dasher, Dancer, Prancer
has never been seen
the harder one pulls
to
separate
the more they resist
as
what is in a name
of flavours, of quarks
Up
Down
Strange
Charm
Bottom
Top
all of one third electric fields
either
1/3 or 2/3 in polarity of combination
as has been confirmed - Nor hide nor sight has been seen of these triplets
as
they are still in the theoretical stage
just like
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and call'd them by name
Now, Dasher! Now, Dancer! Now, Prancer, and Vixen!
On, Comet! On, Cupid! On, Dunder and Blixem!

It is still theoretical, Quarks that is
St Nick, Oh! He's real, ask any child – they see St Nick each year

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni Editing quotes like that is very dishonest. Because you didn't use square brackets the reader assumes it was the original quote.

You should know this since you are so educated.


.....nice for you to accede to my superior academic skills compared to the Pop Cosmology War against Science that goes on in this chatroom.

Made any progress in learning the skills of writing equations? I've noticed since your last chicken scratching session that you've ceased from embarrassing yourself.

Jan 14, 2019

What are you talking about when you write "research laboratories......got it wrong"?

Hey mister radiation therapist, maybe you'd like to tell how many containers of quarks you have laying around on a shelf in some back room that you pull off the shelf from time to time to see if they've changed color or something. Or maybe you don't know a QUARK has never been isolated?

You have this penchant for demanding other people answer YOUR questions, but you always refuse answering theirs.



@ Benni
What other questions am I refusing to answer ?
Please post them again and I will do my best with my favourite textbook.

Sorry, you were going to explain Beta decay as you stated I don't understand it.

So please, explain it to me.

No, a quark has never been isolated, nor has a gluon.

Would you please answer mine ?

And also spacetime curvature is not gravity or provide a reference to prove otherwise.


Jan 14, 2019
@Benni Editing quotes like that is very dishonest. Because you didn't use square brackets the reader assumes it was the original quote.

You should know this since you are so educated.


.....nice for you to accede to my superior academic skills compared to the Pop Cosmology War against Science that goes on in this chatroom.

Made any progress in learning the skills of writing equations? I've noticed since your last chicken scratching session that you've ceased from embarrassing yourself.


Again, you added the gravity in brackets next to the spacetime curvature - there is no literature that defines the spacetime curvature as gravity.

So are evading all the questions about the texbook you were taught from, all the questions that are seeking for your understanding of radioactive/beta decay - as mine is wrong by your statement.

Please post your questions again and I will try to answer your questions.


Jan 14, 2019
@Benni
@RealityCheck
@granville583762

I don't understand this discourse Benni.

You claim that I don't understand, but you are unwilling to provide your knowledge and help me understand, instead you write a feeble insult about my understanding of nuclear physics...

Been doing my best to have polite discussion here, but the further this goes I just see more ad hominem attacks from Benni.

RealityCheck and granville583762 side with you, but also unable to provide any scientific research that would support these theories you all seem to support.

This is not how a discussion between multiple individuals should look like.

Why is it so hard to provide any links, references and studies to support your views ?

I have to say that I've had more links and research papers thrown to me by anti-vaxxers throughout the discussions I've had with them.

Jan 14, 2019

Up
Down
Strange
Charm
Bottom
Top
all of one third electric fields
either
1/3 or 2/3 in polarity of combination
as has been confirmed - Nor hide nor sight has been seen of these triplets
as
they are still in the theoretical stage
just like
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
It is still theoretical, Quarks that is


So the Nobel prize is just another propagation of false physics onto the world ?

Is that what you are saying ?

https://www.nobel...summary/

https://www.nobel...summary/

All these people, who spent their lives working on their research are wrong, simply because you are saying so.
Would you care to provide any research that supports your views?

What have they detected then if they weren't quarks ?

Jan 14, 2019
Jocelyn Bell

Jocelyn Bell discovered the first pulsar in 1967
did she get the Nobel prize
not blooming likely
did she get a shared Nobel prize
not a chance in hell
so
what do you think of your Nobel prize now
kl31415
its hardly worth the paper it's written on
when
It discriminates against the fairer sex
https://physicswo...scovery/

Jan 14, 2019
Quarks and Nobel prizes
kl31415> All these people, who spent their lives working on their research are wrong, simply because you are saying so.
Would you care to provide any research that supports your views?
What have they detected then if they weren't quarks

Apparently
there is something in side the nucleon
but
the rest is all theory and conjecture
leading
to that cherished prize
that
Jocelyn Bell was refused
because
She was the fairer sex

Jan 14, 2019
This Nobel Prize

Looked clean, pure, almost saintly
did it not, kl31415
you thought it was as pure as the driven snow, kl31415
reality
is
purer than fantasy
does
it not seem a might grubby, kl31415
it
is not the saintly pedestal its made out to be
just
a grubby little prize that's lost its way
as
Jocelyn Bell in her finest hour
look happy dear, you've just made a discovery
Sums up this Nobel prize

Jan 14, 2019
This Nobel Prize

Of Physics 2008
was divided
one half awarded to Yoichiro Nambu
for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics
the other half jointly to Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa
for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry
which predicts
the
existence of at least three families of quarks in nature
kl31415
notice how this theory predicts
as were still no nearer to isolating quarks
There by confirming this prediction

kl31415
This Nobel prize was divided
and shared
why
because
They were the masculine sex

Jan 14, 2019
Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Is a spontaneous process of symmetry breaking
by
which a physical system in a symmetric state
ends up in an asymmetric state
In particular
it can describe systems
where
the equations of motion or the Lagrangian obey symmetries
but
the lowest-energy vacuum solutions do not exhibit that same symmetry
when the system goes to one of those vacuum solutions
the symmetry is broken for perturbations around that vacuum
even
though
The entire Lagrangian retains that symmetry

Straight away, kl31415
There is a vacuous entity
as in
lowest-energy vacuum solutions
perturbations around that vacuum
or
The infinite vacuous vacuum of space
devoid of all electromagnetic energy, gravity, protons and electrons
known
simply
as
Vacuum

Jan 14, 2019
k13, you need to understand, you are arguing with woobots. Programmed to disrupt communication between reasonable people with an interest in the sciences.

They are trying to entrap you into accessing the for-profit-selling-bunkum-junk-to-the-gullible sites.

Jan 14, 2019
k13, you need to understand, you are arguing with woobots. Programmed to disrupt communication between reasonable people with an interest in the sciences.

They are trying to entrap you into accessing the for-profit-selling-bunkum-junk-to-the-gullible sites.


@rrwillsj
I am really interested in their literature though.

When I was in my early twenties, as much as I loved science, I was a naive fool, complete fool, for conspiracy theories.
It's very easy to get lost in the wooo.

I would love to see any kind of science backing their views, at least it would be easier to understand where they are coming from.

I doubt I will get any answers from Benni about the Beta decay, as much as I would love to see it.


Jan 14, 2019

Apparently
there is something in side the nucleon
but
the rest is all theory and conjecture
leading
to that cherished prize
that
Jocelyn Bell was refused
because
She was the fairer sex


Yes, no one claimed anything about Jocelyn Bell, or about the male dominance in this society.

Have you heard of the gentlemen named Watson & Crick possibly ?

Have you heard of Rosalind Franklin perhaps ?

In any case, you are still not presenting any links, studies, research...

Could you ?
Would you ?
Possibly ?

I am admiring the perseverance for writing in this unconventional,
yet so majestic,
so distinct,
so very useless
manner.
As to making a statement of meaning,
I would consider using punctuation,
as your words without it,
have no meaning,
even less reason, as the punctuation is not there
to create coherence of the chaos written...


Jan 14, 2019
Thanks kl31415

There is a reason I do not use
punctuation
full stops
is
because I am used to a 1000 words
yes
kl31415, 1000 words
full stops, commas brackets, capitals are worth more than lowercase
so
kl31415, this is why I can get more words
in the available 950 characters
as
kl31415, you do not get the full 1000 characters
as hyperlinks count a lot of characters
as all this never concerned me
when I had 1000 words to play with
as the 1000 words do wonders for your commentary style
It gives a freedom that once you have experienced it you sorely miss it

Jan 14, 2019
Concerning Watson & Crick and their pettiness

Rosalind Elsie Franklin 25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958
an English chemist and X-ray crystallographer
who made contributions to the understanding of the molecular structures of DNA
RNA viruses, coal, and graphite
Although her works on coal and viruses were appreciated in her lifetime
her contributions
to
the discovery of the structure of DNA
Were recognised posthumously
https://en.wikipe...Franklin

We are assuming more Nobel prizes
that prize
that it is sexist
for
The fairer sex to be awarded

Jan 14, 2019
So, kl31415

Nobel prizes count for little
as on PW, Brian Josephson
another Nobel prizes winner
was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973
for
his prediction of the Josephson effect 1962 at Cambridge University
not that you would know it commenting in the flesh
as
outside his field
You would not recognise him propping up the bar down at the local

Jan 14, 2019
Stop pissing around, Granville. You were asked why all these scientists are wrong, and you are right. Your views on the Nobel Prize are irrelevant. Just answer the question. What are your credentials and/ or evidence for your dismissal of their work? I think we all know the answer to that.

Jan 14, 2019
I doubt I will get any answers from Benni about the Beta decay, as much as I would love to see it.


> k131415

An unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.

The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay with not a particle of concern what other neutrons around it are doing. Any other neutrons in the vicinity have no effect on the 14.7 beta decay rate of any other neutron.

........and before you ask the question why there I made no mention of a half life decay rate, it's because there is no such decay rate involved in BETA DECAY of a neutron.


Jan 14, 2019

An unbound neutron in the process of beta decay does not have a half life decay rate, it simply has a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate before decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino & some researchers include a photon.

The instant a neutron becomes unbound from am atom, it will within 14.7 minutes decay with not a particle of concern what other neutrons around it are doing. Any other neutrons in the vicinity have no effect on the 14.7 beta decay rate of any other neutron.

........and before you ask the question why there I made no mention of a half life decay rate, it's because there is no such decay rate involved in BETA DECAY of a neutron.



Wrong. And not a single scientist agrees with you. 14.7 minutes is the mean lifetime, you clown. Some might decay after 5 mins, some after 30 mins. And if it has a mean lifetime, it has a half-life, you clueless idiot.

Jan 14, 2019
Again, you added the gravity in brackets next to the spacetime curvature - there is no literature that defines the spacetime curvature as gravity.


>k131415

"So what is gravity, in Einstein's universe? Generally speaking, any distortion of spacetime geometry. More precisely, there are two sides to gravity: In part, gravity is an observer artefact: it can be made to vanish by going into free fall. Most of the gravity that we experience here on earth when we see objects falling to the ground is of this type, which we might call "relative gravity". The remainder of gravity, "intrinsic gravity", if you will, manifests itself in tidal forces, and is associated with a specific property of geometry: The curvature of spacetime."

http://www.einste...rce.html

Jan 14, 2019
Remember, remember the ethos of ignore
jonesdave> Stop pissing around, Granville. You were asked why all these scientists are wrong, and you are right. Your views on the Nobel Prize are irrelevant. Just answer the question. What are your credentials and/ or evidence for your dismissal of their work? I think we all know the answer to that.

Commentary, vocabluary and plot
glad to see I was never on ignore
welcome back, JD
I have a way of answering questions, JD
as I do not always answer straight away
I do not always answer directly
but
when I answer questions
you're in for the long haul
as
patience is not a virtue, it's a necessity
as long after you think the topics long gone
then I come round to the nitty-gritty
but
Thank you JD, for the complement

Jan 14, 2019
.......and before you ask the question why there I made no mention of a half life decay rate, it's because there is no such decay rate involved in BETA DECAY of a neutron.


Idiot. So what are they measuring here, you bloody clown?

Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al.
http://sci-hub.tw...D.5.1628

Jan 14, 2019
Wrong. And not a single scientist agrees with you. 14.7 minutes is the mean lifetime, you clown. Some might decay after 5 mins, some after 30 mins. And if it has a mean lifetime, it has a half-life, you clueless idiot.


Magnetic Bottle measurement =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

The Magneto-Grav trap is the most accurate at 14.65 minutes.

Averaging the range of the three device types:

14.65 + 14,8 + 14,69 / 3 = 14.713

Jan 14, 2019
Wrong. And not a single scientist agrees with you. 14.7 minutes is the mean lifetime, you clown. Some might decay after 5 mins, some after 30 mins. And if it has a mean lifetime, it has a half-life, you clueless idiot.


Magnetic Bottle measurement =878.3±1.9 s or 14.69 minutes

Cold beam measurement= 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes

Magneto-gravitational trap= 878.8± 0.6 s 14.65 minutes

The Magneto-Grav trap is the most accurate at 14.65 minutes.

Averaging the range of the three device types:

14.65 + 14,8 + 14,69 / 3 = 14.713


And...........? That is the mean lifetime. Idiot. Learn to understand scientific papers, you poser.

Jan 14, 2019
Measurement of the neutron lifetime using an asymmetric magneto- gravitational trap and in situ detection.
Pattie Jr. R. W. et al.
https://arxiv.org...07.01817

The precise value of the ***mean*** neutron lifetime, τn, plays an important role in nuclear and particle physics and cosmology......... As a result of this approach and the use of a new in situ neutron detector, the lifetime reported here (877.7 ± 0.7 (stat) +0.4/-0.2 (sys) s) is the first modern measurement of τn that does not require corrections larger than the quoted uncertainties.

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni: from your own damn quote

"The remainder of gravity, "intrinsic gravity", if you will, manifests itself in tidal forces, and is associated with a specific property of geometry: The curvature of spacetime."

"associated with a specific property of geometry: The curvature of spacetime."

It does not say gravity = the curvature of spacetime.

Jan 14, 2019
Quasi neutral in Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Equations of motion or the Lagrangian obey symmetries

the lowest-energy vacuum solutions do not exhibit the same symmetry
the system goes to one of those vacuum solutions
Where Obfuscation begins
the symmetry is broken for perturbations around that vacuum
even though the Lagrangian retains that symmetry

Breaking Spontaneous symmetry breaking
Into
Its constituent parts
the symmetry is broken
even though
the Lagrangian retains that symmetry
is
An exercise semantics

Jan 14, 2019
As a result of this approach and the use of a new in situ neutron detector, the lifetime reported here (877.7 ± 0.7 (stat) +0.4/-0.2 (sys) s) is the first modern measurement of τn that does not require corrections larger than the quoted uncertainties.


So where is the so-called **average** or **mean** for the BETA DECAY you claim exists?

All you did was Copy the outcome of a run of neutron decay data that came in as the lifetime reported at (877.7 ± 0.7 (stat) +0.4/-0.2 (sys) s) for a run of the the Magneto-Grav Trap Detector.

The time counting deviation being ± 0.7 seconds for this device type on this particular run stands in stark contrast to you claiming that some might even decay after 30 minutes when there is no 30 minute deviation:

Wrong. And not a single scientist agrees with you. 14.7 minutes is the mean lifetime, you clown. Some might decay after 5 mins, some after 30 mins. And if it has a mean lifetime, it has a half-life



Jan 14, 2019


So where is the so-called **average** or **mean** for the BETA DECAY you claim exists?

All you did was Copy the outcome of a run of neutron decay data that came in as the lifetime reported at (877.7 ± 0.7 (stat) +0.4/-0.2 (sys) s) for a run of the the Magneto-Grav Trap Detector.

The time counting deviation being ± 0.7 seconds for this device type on this particular run stands in stark contrast to you claiming that some might even decay after 30 minutes when there is no 30 minute deviation:

Wrong. And not a single scientist agrees with you. 14.7 minutes is the mean lifetime, you clown. Some might decay after 5 mins, some after 30 mins. And if it has a mean lifetime, it has a half-life




Are you blind, you cretin? I quoted it for you, eejit;

The precise value of the ***mean*** neutron lifetime, τn, plays an important role in nuclear and particle physics and cosmology.........


Christ, you are dense. Get an education, you poser.


Jan 14, 2019
Lagrangian mechanics

Is a reformulation of classical mechanics
introduced by the Italian-French mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1788.

In Lagrangian mechanics
the trajectory of a system of particles is derived by solving the Lagrange equations
in one of two forms
either
the Lagrange equations of the first kind
which
treat constraints explicitly as extra equations
often
using Lagrange multipliers
or
the Lagrange equations of the second kind
which incorporate the constraints directly
by judicious choice of generalized coordinates

That it is possible to get an idea in its use in symmetry breaking
it is now obvious there is judicious use of generalised coordinates
it is now obvious there is in Lagrange equations a large degree of degrees of freedom
considering this used in the ground breaking Nobel Prize winning work on predicting quarks
It is starting to give some answers as to why no quarks have been observed in isolation

Jan 14, 2019
Are you blind, you cretin? I quoted it for you, eejit;
..........there is no quote from the instrument manufacturer for a 30 minute deviation as you claim can exist, the deviation was 0.7 seconds.

It isn't possible to have a 30 minute deviation, as you claim can exist, when the actual lifetime beta decay rate that was measured during the run you quoted was 878.4 seconds, 14.64 minutes, max for the highest reading within the run. Maybe you can get back to the manufacturer of the instrument & have him explain why their instrument is not measuring 30 minute deviations?

Jan 14, 2019
@Benni:
Dude that's the deviation for the mean.
That does not mean the neutrons all decayed at 878.4 seconds plus or minus .7 seconds.

Jan 14, 2019
From Lagrangian mechanics to beta decay

Take a single neutron
all alone in the vacuum
looking for its family
the proton, electron and that fleet of foot the neutrino
Mrs. Neutron is expecting
there is no room in the inn
she is all alone in this vacuum
in 14.7minutes about to give birth
to a proton, electron and a neutrino
the question is when
as simple as this seems as it is in 14.7minutes
Mrs. Neutron would have thought her labour pains would be momentary
but no, as she waits eternally for what is only moments
as the minutes count down
the closer she gets to this dead line of beta decay
the closer she gets to this 14.7minutes
the further away she is from this beta decay
is she traveling at the speed of light
is she falling into a blackhole
no, none of these things
the only one
the one and only
the melodious one
JD, has spoken
he's has postulated
that this is a half life
that in 10.2minutes
Half the remaining particles decay in 10.2minutes

Jan 14, 2019
So now we know where half a neutron materialised

JD, has spoken
he has postulated
that this is a half life
that in 10.2minutes
Half the remaining particles decay in 10.2minutes

This is JD postulating half a neutron