Magnetar mysteries in our galaxy and beyond

January 10, 2019, California Institute of Technology
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

Related Stories

Two sides of the same star

May 30, 2018

If you've ever heard of the phrase two sides of the same coin, you know it means two things that at first appear to be unrelated are actually parts of the same thing. Now, a fundamental example can be found in the deep recesses ...

Magnetar near supermassive black hole delivers surprises

May 14, 2015

In 2013, astronomers announced they had discovered a magnetar exceptionally close to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way using a suite of space-borne telescopes including NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

The case of the 'missing link' neutron star

January 6, 2017

Like anthropologists piecing together the human family tree, astronomers have found that a misfit "skeleton" of a star may link two different kinds of stellar remains. The mysterious object, called PSR J1119-6127, has been ...

A strong magnetic field around the Milky Way's black hole

August 14, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have made an important measurement of the magnetic field emanating from a swirling disk of material surrounding the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. The measurement, made by observing ...

A magnetar just woke up after three years of silence

April 10, 2018

When stars reach the end of their main sequence, they undergo a gravitational collapse, ejecting their outermost layers in a supernova explosion. What remains afterward is a dense, spinning core primarily made up of neutrons ...

Magnetic mystery solved

January 28, 2005

Magnetars - stars with magnetic fields a thousand million million times stronger than Earth's - are formed when some of the biggest stars in the cosmos explode, says a team led by Australian ex-pat Bryan Gaensler of the ...

Recommended for you

Multiple stellar populations detected in the cluster Hodge 6

February 18, 2019

Using ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT), astronomers have found that the cluster Hodge 6 hosts multiple stellar populations. The detection could provide important hints on the formation and evolution of Hodge 6 and star clusters ...

Predicting sequence from structure

February 18, 2019

One way to probe intricate biological systems is to block their components from interacting and see what happens. This method allows researchers to better understand cellular processes and functions, augmenting everyday laboratory ...

Energetic particles can bombard exoplanets

February 18, 2019

TRAPPIST-1 is a system of seven Earth-sized worlds orbiting an ultra-cool dwarf star about 120 light-years away. The star, and hence its system of planets, is thought to be between five-to-ten billion years old, up to twice ...

Meteorite source in asteroid belt not a single debris field

February 17, 2019

A new study published online in Meteoritics and Planetary Science finds that our most common meteorites, those known as L chondrites, come from at least two different debris fields in the asteroid belt. The belt contains ...

398 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.7 / 5 (22) 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.

granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) 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
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (19) 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.
granville583762
4.5 / 5 (8) 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
Benni
2 / 5 (20) 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.
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 10, 2019
@Benni - please stop dude. You are embarrassing yourself. Really and truly. I am being serious and not snarking you.
cardzeus
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 10, 2019
@Benni must be a bot - no human is that stupid
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) 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.
IwinUlose
4.2 / 5 (13) Jan 10, 2019
Benni, what happens when r^2 = 0?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) 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...
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) 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 ?
IwinUlose
4.3 / 5 (11) 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)
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 10, 2019
The rational mind would ponder...


I'll stop you there.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 10, 2019
What happens when r^2 = 0?


Why do you write unintelligible expressions?
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (21) 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.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (18) 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.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (14) 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. :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (16) 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.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) 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? :)
IwinUlose
4.2 / 5 (10) 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)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) 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.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (9) 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. :)
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (13) 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.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (9) 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. :)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2019
Is this intentionally in the 3rd person or......
......because I like my moniker, it runs in the family.

Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (3) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) 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
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) 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...
Benni
2 / 5 (10) 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?
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2019
I can't see my nearest neighbor.


How fortunate for your nearest neighbor :P
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) 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.
:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) 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?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) 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?

RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) 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. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) 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-
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2019
The thread appears to be devolving into "nutjob mysteries in physorg and beyond."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) 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.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) 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
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) 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...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.


Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) 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.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) 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.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) 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?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) 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.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) 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. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) 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. :)
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) 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.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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?

jimmybobber
3 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you don't even understand what "mean" means. Hopeless.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.

dsylvan
4.2 / 5 (5) 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
Benni
2 / 5 (8) 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?
dsylvan
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2019
Sure enough Benni 1* gave me 1 star. I gave him a 5.

Good boy!
dsylvan
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2019
Hey Benni 1*---try writing outside the quotes.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2019
@Benni then what do you mean by "it will within 14.7 minutes decay"
dsylvan
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2019
jimmybobber---

Look you evened out Benni 1* and my ratings at 3. Awesome--thanks!
dsylvan
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2019
So I did the same for you. ;)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) 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?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2019
@Benni you said
"Look at the instrumentation data I gave you"
then said "No, I didn't give you any "data""
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) 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?
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
kl31415
3.8 / 5 (10) 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*.

kl31415
3.8 / 5 (10) 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 ?
kl31415
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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 ?

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) 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 ?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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...
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2019
kl31415, simply electric fields by virtue of their spin produce magnetic fields
kl31415
3.7 / 5 (6) 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 ?

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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...
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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 ?
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2019
@kl31415 Yes they are both Electric Universe supporters. They won't outright say it however.
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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 ?
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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 ?

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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 ?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.

kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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 ?

kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) 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.
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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...
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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...
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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 ?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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).

granville583762
3.8 / 5 (8) 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
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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'!
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.

kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) 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

kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) 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 ;)
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) 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.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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?
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) 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 ?
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) 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.

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) 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
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) 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'? :)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) 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
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) 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). :)
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (11) 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
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (11) 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"
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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?
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) 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

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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)
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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 ?
kl31415
3.4 / 5 (5) 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 ?

kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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 ?
kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) 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?
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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 :)

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) 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

??
kl31415
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
kl31415
3.3 / 5 (7) 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...
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
2 / 5 (8) 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.

jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni So you are the maintenance man.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.
granville583762
3.1 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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.
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) 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.

kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.

kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.
kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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 ?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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/
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (6) 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.
kl31415
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.

kl31415
3.8 / 5 (10) 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...

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) 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
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) 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
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) 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
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (12) 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.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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


jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.

granville583762
2.8 / 5 (6) 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
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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?
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) 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
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) 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
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) 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?


Stop talking sh!t you clueless idiot. WTF do you think 'mean' means, dickhead? Go back to primary school, you imbecile.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) 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.
.....then I suggest you get in touch with the manufacturer & explain to them why their instrumentation so screwed up, that it can't measure & average 30 minute beta decay rate for which data jonesy claims his experts have supplied him. Maybe you have your own experts as well jimbo?

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.


Thick as pigsh!t, isn't he? (rhetorical).
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
.....then I suggest you get in touch with the manufacturer & explain to them why their instrumentation so screwed up, that it can't measure & average 30 minute beta decay rate for which data jonesy claims his experts have supplied him. Maybe you have your own experts as well jimbo?



F*ck me, you are thick! Dickhead. What does 'mean' mean, shitforbrains? Never got beyond grade school science, did you, idiot?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
.....then I suggest you get in touch with the manufacturer & explain to them why their instrumentation so screwed up, that it can't measure & average 30 minute beta decay rate for which data jonesy claims his experts have supplied him. Maybe you have your own experts as well jimbo?



I haven't claimed a 30 minute average decay rate, you cretin! The average (mean) lifetime is ~ 15 mins, you bloody idiot. That means that some will decay before that time and some will decay after. The bloody average (or mean) is ~ 15 mins. Cretin.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
Careful, JD
@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.

Thick as pigsh!t, isn't he? (rhetorical).

Talking to your hat is not recommended
unless your gollum
Talking to his precious
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2019
@kl31415.
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 ?
I think you may be laboring under a misapprehension, mate; as to what I actually said and what that lab 'determined'. The mass of the top quark was a mathematical value based on the analysis of energy distribution within the detector after collision. NO actual top (or other flavor of) quark has ever been 'isolated' for further direct physical treatment/study (such as has been done with, eg, the electron/photon/proton/neutron). That was all I said. I said nothing about the lab being "wrong" as such; because they did not actually 'isolate' a quark per se....only analyzed energy distributions and assigned a mass value. Yu must be careful to not conflate 'determines a mass for a quark' with 'isolated that quark'. Ok? Cheers. :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
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 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


>Yo granDy, jonesy is having a really tough day isn't he? He stumbles on a gathering of free neutrons & uses a Magneto Grav Trap detector to count 1000 free neutrons. He comes back to the same gathering point 10 minutes later & finds there are 500 left, he returns again after 10 more minutes & expects to find 250 neutrons remaining, but instead finds 0.

Poor little jonesy the Anthropologist, he didn't know beta neutron decay doesn't work that way. So he gets all red in the face convinced the manufacturer of the Mag-Grav Trap sent him a screwed up instrument.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
I haven't claimed a 30 minute average decay rate, you cretin! The average (mean) lifetime is ~ 15 mins, you bloody idiot. That means that some will decay before that time and some will decay after. The bloody average (or mean) is ~ 15 mins.
.....if it's an average as you are claiming, that can only be interpreted as half decaying prior to 15 minutes & half above 15 minutes, witness your statement:"some will decay before that time and some will decay after".

Then from your other statement:
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


How can something that no longer exists after 14.7 minutes expiration of time have a beta decay rate that extends to 30 minutes? That's an extension of time that exceeds it's known lifetime.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2019
@kl31415.
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"..
Why is infinite density not correct/feasible ?
Because the only (physically real energy/mass) infinite quantity possible can only be attributed to an infinite universe possessing infinite energy-mass 'globally' (ie, not to any one or other arbitrary FINITE 'local' sub-division of that infinite universal extent/quantity). Do you understand the subtle but crucial differentiation to be made there, mate?
Would you be able to point me to a different source of information that you use please which disproves these theories ?
Please understand that PHYSICAL 'singularity' at center of BH is NOT 'theory'; but MATHS 'conjecture'; based on Einstein Equations which BREAK DOWN at r=0. Hence why no competent PHYSICIST would still say 'point with infinite density'. Ok? :)
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2019
Magneto Grav Trap detector
Benni> Yo granDy, jonesy is having a really tough day isn't he? He stumbles on a gathering of free neutrons & uses a Magneto Grav Trap detector to count 1000 free neutrons. He comes back to the same gathering point 10 minutes later & finds there are 500 left, he returns again after 10 more minutes & expects to find 250 neutrons remaining, but instead finds 0

A quick search of Magneto Grav Trap detector
reveals
levitating polarized ultra cold neutrons above the surface of an asymmetric storage trap using a repulsive magnetic field gradient so that the stored neutrons do not interact with material trap walls
the lifetime reported here 877.7 ± 0.7
http://science.sc...6389/627
A long time coming, but worth all the red faces and detention on ignore
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
@kl31415.
@Benni
...
RealityCheck and granville583762 side with you,..
Please be aware, mate, that I'm independent, impartial observer/commenter; NOT part of any group/gang; NOR do I 'take sides'; I merely make indicated impartial/independent correct observations/opinions to ALL/ANY poster (regardless whatever 'sides' THEY may be), letting the impartial observation/comment fall where it may, according to known/evolving science. Whether or not my science/logics based observations/comments 'support' one or other poster/view etc is purely due to the science/logics itself, and not in any way pre-intended to 'side' with any one or other. Ok? :)
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.
Some use 'link storms' to clutter/confuse discussion instead of trying to actually understand/address the point themselves. Better to understand the point and address it from your own knowledge. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2019
@kl31415.
So the Nobel prize is just another propagation of false physics onto the world ?

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

https://www.nobel...summary/
Again, you must be careful NOT to conflate 'Nobel for work which helped towards quark MODEL' (which your references relate to), with 'Nobel for ISOLATION of quark' (for which a Nobel has NOT yet been awarded because it hasn't actually been accomplished to date).

Please note well: I am NOT rubbishing such work that led to said model; I merely point out the crucial difference between the accomplished 'groundwork/model', and yet-to-be-accomplished 'quark-isolation' per se.
What have they detected then if they weren't quarks ?
I explained in an earlier post to you re analytical attributions/modeling being different from actual direct detection/isolation etc. One must always be on guard to against conflations which lead to 'urban legend' about what is 'actual'. Ok? :)
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni

You aren't going to understand this but free neutron decay is probabilistic in nature. A free neutron might decay immediately after it becomes free. There is no guarantee "when" a free neutron will decay. If you take a large enough sample of them you get a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes. That doesn't mean they all decayed at 15 minutes.

It's unlikely that many free neutrons decay at 30 minutes but there is still a chance, albeit a tiny probability, that one can. Most don't as evident by the mean lifetime.

Your problem is you think there is a timer in a neutron that starts at 0 seconds once it becomes free and expires around 15 minutes. You think a neutron has an expiration date.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
Because the only (physically real energy/mass) infinite quantity possible can only be attributed to an infinite universe possessing infinite energy-mass 'globally' (ie, not to any one or other arbitrary FINITE 'local' sub-division of that infinite universal extent/quantity). Do you understand the subtle but crucial differentiation to be made there, mate?


.........he does not comprehend the immutable law of physics that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT. He forgot to talk to one of his Phd colleagues at the cancer center before shooting off his mouth.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni You aren't going to understand this but free neutron decay is probabilistic in nature. A free neutron might decay immediately after it becomes free.
....it will NEVER "decay immediately after it becomes free", it will be 14.65 minutes.

There is no guarantee "when" a free neutron will decay.
.....oh yes there is such a guarantee, you know as much about nuclear physics as you do writing equations here.

If you take a large enough sample of them you get a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes. That doesn't mean they all decayed at 15 minutes.


Same silly Pop Cosmology claptrap with which jonesy has gotten himself boxed into a corner.

It's unlikely that many free neutrons decay at 30 minutes


It'll be zero free neutrons decay at 30 minutes because all of them winked out of existence at 14.7 minutes. The lifetime of a free neutron CANNOT extend beyond 14.7 minutes, such has never been observed in any of the 3 detection methods used.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
There is no guarantee "when" a free neutron will decay.


Yes there is such a guarantee, you know as much about nuclear physics as you do writing equations here.

The count time begins the instant a neutron is unbound from a nucleus. Do you get that? The clock starts counting down to 14.7 at exactly the instant it becomes FREE, nothing can DELAY that count time from commencing, or concluding.

jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2019
Thank You Benni.
You have successfully, in a single post, for the world to see, shown us how ignorant you really are. In one post! It's like winning the lottery.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni LOL!. What is counting? Please explain! This is great!
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni.
Because the only (physically real energy/mass) infinite quantity possible can only be attributed to an infinite universe possessing infinite energy-mass 'globally' (ie, not to any one or other arbitrary FINITE 'local' sub-division of that infinite universal extent/quantity). Do you understand the subtle but crucial differentiation to be made there, mate?
.....he does not comprehend the immutable law of physics that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT. He forgot to talk to one of his Phd colleagues at the cancer center before shooting off his mouth.
Please recall (and try better to abide by) what I said about 'coat-tailing' my posts in order to make trollish/feuding remarks which add nothing but further animosity to the discussion/thread.

Anyway, mate, the point was NOT 'gravity', but specifically 'Density of Mass' at alleged point/ring 'singularity' described in wiki you quoted before; which I suggested should be changed from "infinite" to "maximum" density. :)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni doesn't get what "average" means. Part of its ignorance of basic math. This isn't even difficult stuff; it's taught in grade school.

So much for any education in electrical engineering, much less nuclear engineering.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
Thank You Benni.
You have successfully, in a single post, for the world to see, shown us how ignorant you really are. In one post! It's like winning the lottery.


If you're likening the debate you have lost as a comparison to having won the lottery for yourself, the contents of your lottery winnings will have as many free neutrons in it as a count that started with 1000 & ended in 14.7 minutes with zero. Stay away from those time expiring lotteries jimbo.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
jonesy is having a really tough day
Magneto Grav Trap detector
Benni> Yo granDy, jonesy is having a really tough day isn't he? He stumbles on a gathering of free neutrons & uses a Magneto Grav Trap detector to count 1000 free neutrons. He comes back to the same gathering point 10 minutes later & finds there are 500 left, he returns again after 10 more minutes & expects to find 250 neutrons remaining, but instead finds 0

A quick search of Magneto Grav Trap detector
reveals
levitating polarized ultra cold neutrons above the surface of an asymmetric storage trap using a repulsive magnetic field gradient so that the stored neutrons do not interact with material trap walls
the lifetime reported here 877.7 ± 0.7
http://science.sc...6389/627
A long time coming, but worth all the red faces and detention on ignore

JD is always having a really tough day
even on good days
JD, has this Manchurian knack
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2019
Bwahahaha, you're right @jimmy, this idiot thinks "average" means they all decay at the same time.

Some of the neutrons may not decay in a billion years, or more. That's what average means.

Welcome to the Intertubes, @Benni. Now slink off and try to figure it out.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@Benni LOL!. What is counting? Please explain! This is great!
PLease don't be as bad as you accuse Benni of being with terminology/semantics, mate. You (should) know very well that context determines the meaning meant by "counting". As in Geiger counter accumulating instances tally of particle/radiation 'hits'. Or a stopwatch etc accumulating 'elapsed seconds' tally. etc. Please try and be the better person/scientist in this New Year, and not employing the same old tactics that your feuding partner is accused of using. Ok? Thanks. :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni LOL!. What is counting? Please explain! This is great!


It makes perfect sense that you'd be the one to ask such a question, "What is counting"? ....... given how little else you even know even for just for writing equations here.
jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2019
Benni said:

"The count time begins the instant a neutron is unbound from a nucleus. Do you get that? The clock starts counting down to 14.7 at exactly the instant it becomes FREE, nothing can DELAY that count time from commencing, or concluding."

I'm only using his own words.

I want to understand this clock of his that is counting in a neutron.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
This Neutron has finally decayed
@jimmybobber.
@Benni LOL!. What is counting? Please explain! This is great!
RealityCheck > PLease don't be as bad as you accuse Benni of being with terminology/semantics, mate. You (should) know very well that context determines the meaning meant by "counting". As in Geiger counter accumulating instances tally of particle/radiation 'hits'. Or a stopwatch etc accumulating 'elapsed seconds' tally. etc. Please try and be the better person/scientist in this New Year, and not employing the same old tactics that your feuding partner is accused of using. Ok? Thanks. :)

Mrs Neutron has given birth
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
Some of the neutrons may not decay in a billion years, or more. That's what average means.


>schneibo the Moderator

Not in any of these three detectors:

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

........you have a different one schneibo? If you do I can guarantee it's broken & you got sucked in by someone who saw you as a MOST LIKELY VICTIM for a scam.

RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
@jimmybobber.
Benni said:

"The count time begins the instant a neutron is unbound from a nucleus. Do you get that? The clock starts counting down to 14.7 at exactly the instant it becomes FREE, nothing can DELAY that count time from commencing, or concluding."

I'm only using his own words.

I want to understand this clock of his that is counting in a neutron.
Then why didn't you put it like that?....instead of the ambiguous/sarcastic manner which dripped with ridicule and malicious intent other than for actual explanation as you just requested in the proper manner now?

Anyway, 'internal clock' processes/concept is inherent; applied commonly in systems/displays where periodic oscillations, singular/serial emissions etc behavior CAN BE USED AS a form of 'clock standard/mechanism' for timing other processes/motions etc. As you carry on with your discussion with Benni you may wish to take that 'generality' into account....sorry, no pun intended. :)

ps: G'night all. :)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2019
@Benni, they all only can count average time or half-life time.

How long an individual neutron takes to decay is random. Basic fact of quantum mechanics. Well known and well documented. Maybe you should actually find out what an average is.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
Of Neutrons in a bottle

Trapped by their only remaining force
their magnetic field keeping these neutron free in this bottle
free in this bottled vacuum
that finaly
it is accepted by all
that after no more than 890s
these neutrons are no more
as
can JD take the next step
or
is JD
going to do the only thing he knows how
which
is to take to the bottle him self
and
Dream of pink elephants marching right out of his bottle
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2019
@grandy also doesn't understand what "average" means. No one who knows what they're talking about "accepts" that "these neutrons are no more." This is why people who don't understand "average" shouldn't make pronouncements about nuclear physics.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2019
And finally
Da Schneib> @grandy also doesn't understand what "average" means. No one who knows what they're talking about "accepts" that "these neutrons are no more." This is why people who don't understand "average" shouldn't make pronouncements about nuclear physics.

The gurus of gurus
admits defeat
the only way DS knows how
Gracefully
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
@grandy also doesn't understand what "average" means. No one who knows what they're talking about "accepts" that "these neutrons are no more." This is why people who don't understand "average" shouldn't make pronouncements about nuclear physics.
......and the only ones here who are fixated on "average" are those Pop Cosmology groupies out waging war against Science.

Love the embedded Moderators the administrators of this website choose. It's like they send the schniebos out to do a fantasy survey among overaged Trekkies, and that becomes the criteria of the content.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2019
And finally

Da Schneib> @grandy also doesn't understand what "average" means. No one who knows what they're talking about "accepts" that "these neutrons are no more." This is why people who don't understand "average" shouldn't make pronouncements about nuclear physics.


The gurus of gurus
admits defeat
the only way DS knows how
Gracefully


Holy smokes granDy, you're right!!!!!! He called you "grandy".........HE'S CAVED.

Ah, come on schneibo, tell us you're not giving up entertaining us with your Pop Cosmology fantasies? That Anthropologist and Equationguy jimbo, are just gonna feel ever so lonely.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2019
Benni

When in defeat
on topic of difficulty
of extraordinary complexity
of half life
of life of decay
of exponential mathematics
when winner takes all
it is in defeat
to expect in defeat
to take in good heart
gracefully
esoterically in textural form
as DS has in his way acceded texturally
"accepts" that "these neutrons are no more."
is no better way of acceding defeat
and with the grace that only DS know how
as in honouree form
as in days of old
DS night's granville
the honouree title
grandy

granDy
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2019
admits defeat
After everything you said was proven wrong?

Puh-leeze.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2019
Da Schneib
admits defeat
After everything you said was proven wrong?
Puh-leeze.

Don't sully your words
as you chose them your self
with no prompting
no coercion
simply DS in esoterical textural form
Your saving grace, DS
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2019
@Benni, they all only can count average time or half-life time.

How long an individual neutron takes to decay is random. Basic fact of quantum mechanics. Well known and well documented. Maybe you should actually find out what an average is.


..........and by now you know this isn't true, that individual neutron beta decay is NOT random, that decay commences the INSTANT a neutron becomes unbound from an atomic nucleus & within 14.7 minutes will decay out of existence.

Some of the neutrons may not decay in a billion years, or more.
.......you still haven't told us how you know this............ok, let me help you here, it's an Immutable Fantasy of Pop Cosmology's war on Science.
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 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.


So what Benni here is explaining is that he absolutely DOES NOT understand what radioactive decay really is or the difference between mean lifetime and half-life.

He further reinforced this conclusion with further posts.

kl31415
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2019
RealityCheck is very wise in saying that you should use your knowledge instead of throwing links.

Well that is a very interesting idea. So where does this knowledge comes from then @RealityCheck.
Have you been imbued with this physics knowledge and understanding ? As it seems you have no literature to fall back on.
The only conclusion would be that RealityCheck is a genius as he doesn't need literature to learn.

He is pulling the knowledge out of his head and it is all absolutely accurate, so he does not understand the needs of someone ungifted as me, as I need literature to learn...

granville583762 is just writing gibberish in his artsy way as it makes him feel special and smart and probably is needed to hide away the misunderstanding of the world around him.

Not one of you has put out any link or any literature to support the lunacy you have been spouting on here..

Why is that ???

Where did you learn this physics of yours ???

kl31415
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2019
I see that it is impossible to have discours about physics with people who refuse to answer to clear questions as it's much more fun to jump to another error in our thinking before actually presenting any evidence in support of their views.

It's nice that the whole world is dumb, but only a handful of people suffering with extreme cognitive dissonances are right, without any fact or evidence.

Zehr kool yah ;)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 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.


So what Benni here is explaining is that he absolutely DOES NOT understand what radioactive decay really is or the difference between mean lifetime and half-life.

He further reinforced this conclusion with further posts.
.

So far, all that you've been offering up have been convoluted explanations about neutron beta decay that don't exist in the world of nuclear physics. Maybe followup on your own suggestion, that because all you are is a radiation therapist that you will take all the beta decay discussions you've had with me to one of your Phd doctor friends at the oncology center where you work.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2019
I see that it is impossible to have discours about physics with people who refuse to answer to clear questions as it's much more fun to jump to another error in our thinking before actually presenting any evidence in support of their views.

It's nice that the whole world is dumb, but only a handful of people suffering with extreme cognitive dissonances are right, without any fact or evidence.
......it is not an extreme cognitive dissonance knowing how to solve Differential Equations used in the profession of Nuclear/Electrical Engineering for which I spent 6 years studying in Engineering school, in addition to which I have accumulated an additional 1.5 years of continuing education credits......now ask me why I should care about ANYTHING you have to say?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
I see that it is impossible to have discours about physics with people who refuse to answer to clear questions as it's much more fun to jump to another error in our thinking before actually presenting any evidence in support of their views.

It's nice that the whole world is dumb, but only a handful of people suffering with extreme cognitive dissonances are right, without any fact or evidence.
......it is not an extreme cognitive dissonance knowing how to solve Differential Equations used in the profession of Nuclear/Electrical Engineering for which I spent 6 years studying in Engineering school, in addition to which I have accumulated an additional 1.5 years of continuing education credits......now ask me why I should care about ANYTHING you have to say?


Says an idiot who can't even understand what a half-life is!
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
I haven't claimed a 30 minute average decay rate, you cretin! The average (mean) lifetime is ~ 15 mins, you bloody idiot. That means that some will decay before that time and some will decay after. The bloody average (or mean) is ~ 15 mins.
.....if it's an average as you are claiming, that can only be interpreted as half decaying prior to 15 minutes & half above 15 minutes, witness your statement:"some will decay before that time and some will decay after".

Then from your other statement:
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


How can something that no longer exists after 14.7 minutes expiration of time have a beta decay rate that extends to 30 minutes? That's an extension of time that exceeds it's known lifetime.



Jesus, talk about thick! Read the papers, you moron.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
There is no guarantee "when" a free neutron will decay.


Yes there is such a guarantee, you know as much about nuclear physics as you do writing equations here.

The count time begins the instant a neutron is unbound from a nucleus. Do you get that? The clock starts counting down to 14.7 at exactly the instant it becomes FREE, nothing can DELAY that count time from commencing, or concluding.



Lol. In spite of all the scientific literature to the contrary, this idiot still makes his idiotic claims! What a loser.
kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019

...neutron beta decay that don't exist in the world of nuclear physics. Maybe followup on your own suggestion, that because all you are is a radiation therapist that you will take all the beta decay discussions you've had with me to one of your Phd doctor friends at the oncology center where you work.


It's a nice thought, but unfortunately I work in the medical industry, so not really contributing as much with patient care as I used to.
This is also the reason there's plenty of PHD's from different areas as we have an MR linac now too.

No, they only exist in absolutely every textbook about radioactive decay.

Oh, but sorry, they use these extremely complicated concepts as mean lifetime and half-life.

I'll try again though ;)

https://en.wikipe...on_decay
http://hyperphysi...ton.html
https://www.brita.../neutron
http://neutron.ph...Nico.pdf

kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019

knowing how to solve Differential Equations used in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering for which I spent 6 years studying in Engineering school
..now ask me why I should care about ANYTHING you have to say?

Oh Mr.IAmVerySMart, I apologise that my incoherent delusions about Beta decay can actually disturb a person of such a strong very stable genius...

Why would you care ? What is the point of your presence here on this forum then ? Spreading mythos ?

The differential equations you talk about, they don't cause extreme cognitive dissonance with your brilliant mind ?
How do you then do your work ? How do you apply this hogwash science in your daily job ?
I am seriously interested how can you do your work with physics you do not believe in...

Still no literature, we are now down to bragging of ones genius and understanding of differential equations from someone on the internet who cannot even provide the textbook he learned nuclear physics from.
Fascinating :)
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2019
Tbf, I had loads of fun with this. I expected more from the woo people...

No scientific research to back them, no references to anything, no books, no scientists, no links....

They are unable to provide even he textbooks where they learned physics from, or rather should I say the lack of, as RealityCheck seems to have no need for this nonsense knowledge in books, he uses knowledge he has, mmhmm, indeed, he has such high understanding of physics no schools or books were needed for his absolute comprehension...

And the poetic guy.
He doesn't use punctuation to save space, but in his posts you can notice that there was never any intention to convey any kind of useful information, as one would write a sentence that was clear and punctuated, so the idea he portrays in his mind, that he has a need of the 1000 words is laughable just as the text he posts with such fervor repeating the same sentence at least 5 times - as we all know this is how you save space to convey meaning.

kl31415
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2019
Honestly, the anti-vaxxers are even better at this than you guys/girls.

They will throw all kinds of science and research to prove you are wrong, many links, much scientific research.

But none of you even dares to share their textbooks where you learned this marvelous physics of yours.

Pure, very stable genius :)
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
Here are three papers, each with a link to the paper, and and also an image of one of the figures from those papers;

Magnetic storage of UCN for a measurement of the neutron lifetime
Ezhov, V. F. et al.
https://www.scien...09015186 (paywalled)

http://www.imageb...93397154

Neutron lifetime measurements and effective spectral cleaning with an ultracold neutron trap using a vertical Halbach octupole permanent magnet array
Leung, K. K. H. et al.
https://arxiv.org...0929.pdf

http://www.imageb...93397174

Neutron lifetime measurement with the UCN trap-in-trap MAMBO II
Pichlmaier, A. et al.
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

http://www.imageb...93397184

Now, anybody can read those papers and look at the figures, and see that the experiments are run over various times, up to 3000s. Neutrons are detected from go to whoa.

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
And the above post shows that I was correct in saying that the decay could be at 5 mins. (300s) or 30 mins. (1800s). It obviously can be earlier and later than those times, as the third image plainly shows. They are still getting hundreds of detections at 50 mins. (3000s).
Which all goes to prove, yet again, that Benni hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
It should also be noted that the detection rate in those figures falls on a straight line. That is an effect of the y-axes being logarithmic. If even numerical spacing were used on those axes, what you would see would be the expected exponential decay curve.

https://mathbitsn...cay2.jpg
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2019
I've been trying to get a basic understanding of these neutron lifetime tests, so that I can explain what is going on at a basic level. Having just read the third paper linked upthread, and referring to figure 2, also at http://www.imageb...93397184 we can see that what they do is to run a series of experiments, lasting for differing amounts of time. Those time periods are (apparently); 100s, 400s, 700s, 1000s, 1300s, 2000s & 3000s. After the allotted time, the neutrons remaining are counted. This then gives the slope seen in the figures, from whence it is easy to calculate the half-life.
If Benni were correct (and he never is), then we should see equal counts all the way up to ~ 14.7 mins. followed by no counts whatsoever. Which is quite obviously bollocks. Which is why Benni is having a laugh when he claims to understand nuclear physics. Or any other sort of physics. Or science, for that matter.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2019
@kl31415.
So where does this knowledge comes from then...
You may as well have asked where Einstein's ideas/understandings came from as he proceeded to 'connect' all the MANY KNOWN SCIENCE 'dots' (which everyone else was unable to do) in order to come up with his NOVEL (post-Newtonian 'textbooks') ALTERNATIVE understanding of GRAVITY; ie: GENERAL RELATIVITY. :)

Just picture how your blanket demand for 'links' would've gone down with EINSTEIN, @kl31415. :)

Can't you just 'see' Einstein regarding you as he would a 'dullard'....for only such would 'expect/demand' PRIOR TEXTBOOKS/LINKS regarding the 'source' of his ENTIRELY NEW and REVOLUTIONARY Gravity perspective/theory.

Will you pause your 'fun trolling' long enough to see that subtle point, @kl31415? :)

ps: @kl31415, you're obviously misinformed about me (I am ATHEIST and IMPARTIAL); and also about what I've posted over years (correct according to KNOWN/EVOLVING science). Discern between your interlocutors, mate! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2019
@kl31415
RealityCheck is very wise in saying that you should use your knowledge instead of throwing links
funny thing: realitycheck (rc) can do neither, usually

when challenged to produce his "4 fatal flaws" and 4 additional flaws in the open and available BICEP2 paperwork he simply refused to answer and now, 8,498 posts later, he will simply claim we refused to read it or ignored it

the number of posts can be substantiated by the ADMIN or MOD's of the site or others tracking this
and a search will demonstrate that there are zero rc posts explaining the 4 fatal and other flaws, though he does mention what he believes to be a flaw once just a few months back (no validation from him, of course)
I expected more from the woo people
you should check out rc's page here for a laugh, then: http://earthlingclub.com/

enjoy the insanity and welcome to looney central, where the benji's/ rc's/egg trolls f*ck up the comments sections with their BS
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2019
pps: @kl31415.

And specifically regarding this from you:
Not one of you has put out any link...
By now you should have learned to tell the difference between me and any other posters here with whom you are 'having fun' trolling, mate. Please realize I only link when absolutely necessary and only if it goes directly to my point rather than distract from it; and not just to play the 'links game' to pander to 'fun trolls' feuds/distractions while the substantive/central scientific/logical points I raise are ignored and 'buried' in 'troll-shiite' from whatever 'side' is guilty of it in any particular instance/thread.

pps: Re the issue of correctness/links, I would further draw your attention to a post I made to...

@SkyLight
@Ojorf.

...just yesterday, providing yet more mainstream evidence that I was correct in my long explained (to @RNP, IMP-9 etc) flaws/serious reservations re the old/naive/simplistic 'standard candles' Type Ia Supernovae assumptions/interpretations. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2019
@Forum.

And up pops the Cap, who invented the now-infamous CS-"TL;DR Research Method"; which misses all the most salient evidence because, as the Cap often BOASTED, he did NOT READ the posts before insulting and rewriting history/record according to his own biased/selective half-truth-view of the posting reality that went down. Poor thing. The Cap will never live this down if he keeps trolling his own personal biases ignorance and malice like that in this New Year as in years past. Sad case. Pity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2019
@kl31415
see - it's a compulsion. I predicted, he absolutely had to prove me correct.

ol' sam fodera (rc) can't comprehend that the internet is searchable and that the evidence demonstrates he is lying about his fatal (and other) flaws and that he made zero mention of them!

this is the level of stupid that the site now allows, even though at one time they deleted his pseudoscience bullsh*t, as evidenced by the sheer volume of his deleted posts - he being one of the more prolific posters, second only to zeph and his sock army

if ya really want to have some fun, because you're relatively new, ask him to link the 4 fatal and 4 other flaws and explain it to ya!

LMFAO
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2019
@kl31415.

Oh, that post I drew your attention to in my post to you 20 minutes ago above, is in thread...

https://phys.org/...k_1.html

...made yesterday to:
@SkyLight
@Ojorf.

Note the usual misinformed trolling/insulting by them while ignoring the many recent/past instances when I have been correct all along (and they NOT so).

ps: BEWARE the Captain Stumpy corrupting menace, mate. He is now 'addressing' you as 'cover' for his nefarious stupidity/malice agenda ; which he is all too long/well known for by now by genuine, honest, longtime intelligent and objective observers/readers here. Cap is starting to do to you what he has unconscionably done to many other 'newbies' and gullible types here in the past: USING YOU as his 'conversation' PAWN in his deranged malicious campaign against one who has increasingly been confirmed correct by recent mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum physics discoveries/reviews. Don't say you were't made aware, mate. Good luck. :)
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
You may as well have asked where Einstein's ideas/understandings came from as he proceeded to 'connect' all the MANY KNOWN SCIENCE 'dots' (which everyone else was unable to do) in order to come up with his NOVEL (post-Newtonian 'textbooks') ALTERNATIVE understanding of GRAVITY; ie: GENERAL RELATIVITY. :)

Just picture how your blanket demand for 'links' would've gone down with EINSTEIN, @kl31415. :)

Can't you just 'see' Einstein regarding you as he would a 'dullard'....for only such would 'expect/demand' PRIOR TEXTBOOKS/LINKS regarding the 'source' of his ENTIRELY NEW and REVOLUTIONARY Gravity perspective/theory.


Oh, ladies and gentlemen, we have an Einstein-like genius over here ! :)

Mate, this is by far the best response to calling out someone for the absence of scientific support for his views.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2019
Beware the Captain Stumpy by RealityCheck

Twas brillig and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrab

Beware the Captain Stumpy
corrupting menace mate
he is now addressing
you as cover
for his nefarious
stupidity malice agenda
which he is all too long well known
for by now by genuine
honest long time
intelligent and objective
observers readers here
Cap is starting to do to you
what he has unconscionably done
to many other newbie's gullible types
here in the past
using you as his conversation pawn
in his deranged malicious campaign
against one who has increasingly
been confirmed correct
by recent mainstream
astro cosmo quantum physics discoveries reviews
don't say you weren't made aware
Good luck

By RealityCheck, who's always confirmed correct, well done old bean!
Ojorf
5 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
@kl31415.
So where does this knowledge comes from then...
You may as well have asked where Einstein's ideas/understandings came from as he proceeded to 'connect' all the MANY KNOWN SCIENCE 'dots' (which everyone else was unable to do) in order to come up with his NOVEL (post-Newtonian 'textbooks') ALTERNATIVE understanding of GRAVITY; ie: GENERAL RELATIVITY. :)


Damn, some days I just don't know who is the thickest poster here, you Benni or SEU.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@kl31415 welcome to physorg. You seem to have detected the trolls successfully.
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2019
@kl31415.

Oh, that post I drew your attention to in my post to you 20 minutes ago above, is in thread...

https://phys.org/...k_1.html

...made yesterday to:
@SkyLight
@Ojorf.
Note the usual misinformed trolling/insulting by them while ignoring the many recent/past instances when I have been correct all along (and they NOT so).
ps: BEWARE the Captain Stumpy corrupting menace, mate.


Parental guidance noted, ta.

So you were right about this thing you posted, I'm not gonna waste time on that, good for you mate.

I've been reading these 'discussions' on phys.org for some time, just never felt motivated enough to actually make an account.

Honestly, I came here as I really wanted to see where do people like Benni get their information.

I was trying to be polite and really tried hard not to go on the trolling spree, but none of you seems to be able to hold a decent discussion or are willing to provide any science that would support your views.
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019
@RealityCheck

What is your view for free neutron decay ?

Do you support Benni in his explanations of radioactive decay ?

Cheers
kl31415
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@kl31415 welcome to physorg. You seem to have detected the trolls successfully.


Cheers !

I feel as I've passed my hazing on this thread, hahaha.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
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


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

18 hours ago
Here are three papers, each with a link to the paper, and and also an image of one of the figures from those papers;


Wasn't it so nice of me to put up the three different neutron lifetime measuring device types enabling you to have a SOURCE (Benni) looking up how those three device types function? In advance of your,"Thank you Benni for your assistance in helping me search these device types", I just want to say, "You're welcome jonesy, it's what I'm here for".

By the way, did you notice what was absent from the discussions of the 3 devices: NEUTRON HALF LIFE.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019


By the way, did you notice what was absent from the discussions of the 3 devices: NEUTRON HALF LIFE.



Stupid clown. Did you notice the detections well after 14.7 mins. you useless POS? If it has a mean lifetime, you idiot, then it has a half life. You were wrong, and have been shown to be so. Now go away, and try to get over it.

Measurement of the neutron half-life
Bondarenko, L. N. et al.
http://www.jetple...4154.pdf
kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019


Stupid clown. Did you notice the detections well after 14.7 mins. you useless POS? If it has a mean lifetime, you idiot, then it has a half life. You were wrong, and have been shown to be so. Now go away, and try to get over it.

Measurement of the neutron half-life
Bondarenko, L. N. et al.
http://www.jetple...4154.pdf


Didn't you notice that Benni's source of information says that half-life cannot be used to measure 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. 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.


It doesn't matter what half-life actually means cause Benni said it ain't so despite throwing tens of articles/research papers that prove otherwise :)
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
neutron
when are the finding of experimental data accepted
where are the free neutrons in this vacuum
where are these free neutrons in this atmosphere
as these neutrons
if we believe all the hype
live for eternity in this vacuum
apparently
if
we are gullibly inclined
these free neutrons
give this 60,000yotta life electron a run for its money
as
apparently
this free neutron out lives its baby, its electron
that is
when it decays
which
apparently
is
not for some 60,000yotta years
give or take
the odd 60,000yotta year or two
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni jonesdave posted the following link
http://www.imageb...93397184

Did you even look at that image?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
By the way, did you notice what was absent from the discussions of the 3 devices: NEUTRON HALF LIFE.


Did you notice the detections well after 14.7 mins. you useless POS? If it has a mean lifetime, you idiot, then it has a half life. You were wrong, and have been shown to be so. Now go away, and try to get over it.


......you mean to say that with all the assistance I gave you searching for device types that the best you can do is come back with another name calling rant?

Ask you again, did you notice there was not one word of discussion in those device types about NEUTRON HALF LIFE? Of course you couldn't have missed it, so you falsely insert your own conclusions that:
Did you notice the detections well after 14.7 mins? If it has a mean lifetime....then it has a half life. You were wrong


Hey, jonesy, why do you falsely imagine you're smarter than the people who made the devices & wrote the specifications for these three measurement devices?
kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
neutron
when are the finding of experimental data accepted


If only there were some sort of, hmm I dunno, experiments that have been done and reproduced numerous times, and also that these findings from these experiments were peer-reviewed by a bunch of scientists that are experts in their fields... If only we would live in such a world...

Not knowing the half-life of beta decay would make a number of radioactive isotopes completely worthless/useless for Nuclear medicine.

So again, we have practical applications of physics, which all of you claim is wrong, but is used daily based on the data presented here through various links to research papers.

May I ask what other conspiracy theories are prevalent in your minds ?

Anti-vaccine ?
Chem-trails ?
Flat Earth ?
Finland doesn't exist ?
Moon landing ?
Evolution ?

Do tell :)
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni jonesdave posted the following link
http://www.imageb...93397184

Did you even look at that image?


Can you please comment on that image Benni?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Hey, jonesy, why do you falsely imagine you're smarter than the people who made the devices & wrote the specifications for these three measurement devices?


WTF are you on about, you cretin? You said that all neutrons would decay exactly at 14.7 minutes. You were wrong you stupid clown. And I provided the proof of that for all to see, And then I just linked you to a paper measuring the half-life, you blind moron. You were 100% wrong, you idiot.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
kl31415, nailing your colours to your mast
live long and prosper
with your 60,000yotta life marriage with your neutron
come back
in 60,000yotta years
and
tell us how this eternal marriage succeeded
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
jonesy, why do you falsely imagine you're smarter than the people who made the devices & wrote the specifications for these three measurement devices?


You said that all neutrons would decay exactly at 14.7 minutes. You were wrong . And I provided the proof of that for all to see, And then I just linked you to a paper measuring the half-life, You were 100% wrong


No, the problem is the fact you don't know how to read the sets of data accounting for all the ORIGINAL neutrons in the final count at the conclusion of the run.

The system was flushing anomalous particles that were never part of the original neutron stream from the neutron source, otherwise the data would show neutron count at the end of the stream exceeding neutron count from the START of the test run........and you still go on a psycho-babble rant how system flushing data proves these devices counted neutron half life, this absent any such conclusion by the scientists doing the test.
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019


No, the problem is the fact you don't know how to read the sets of data accounting for all the ORIGINAL neutrons in the final count at the conclusion of the run.

The system was flushing anomalous particles that were never part of the original neutron stream from the neutron source, otherwise the data would show neutron count at the end of the stream exceeding neutron count from the START of the test run........and you still go on a psycho-babble rant how system flushing data proves these devices counted neutron half life, this absent any such conclusion by the scientists doing the test.


Is that so Benni ?

So why do they call it mean lifetime ?

Why are they talking about a 'mean' value if all neutron seize to exist exactly after 14.7 minutes ?
kl31415
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
kl31415, nailing your colours to your mast
live long and prosper
with your 60,000yotta life marriage with your neutron
come back
in 60,000yotta years
and
tell us how this eternal marriage succeeded


You have not filled out the 1000 characters, indeed without any meaning.

Your poetry is deteriorating.

Don't give up though, a few more decades and you'll come up with a sentence that actually makes sense.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
jonesy, why do you falsely imagine you're smarter than the people who made the devices & wrote the specifications for these three measurement devices?


You said that all neutrons would decay exactly at 14.7 minutes. You were wrong . And I provided the proof of that for all to see, And then I just linked you to a paper measuring the half-life, You were 100% wrong


No, the problem is the fact you don't know how to read the sets of data accounting for all the ORIGINAL neutrons in the final count at the conclusion of the run.



Complete and utter fail. You're in denial, idiot-boy. It is very clear what those detections are of, you cretin. Look at the third paper, and the figure I linked to. What does it say, you braindead pillock?

The decay curve of UCN population in the main storage trap is very close to exponential......


Idiot. What do you think UCN stands for, hmmm thicko? Ultra Cold Neutrons. Christ you are thick.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
No, the problem is the fact you don't know how to read the sets of data accounting for all the ORIGINAL neutrons in the final count at the conclusion of the run.

The system was flushing anomalous particles that were never part of the original neutron stream from the neutron source, otherwise the data would show neutron count at the end of the stream exceeding neutron count from the START of the test run........and you still go on a psycho-babble rant how system flushing data proves these devices counted neutron half life, this absent any such conclusion by the scientists doing the test.


Is that so Benni ?
Yes, jonesy/k131415 that is so.

So why do they call it mean lifetime ?

Why are they talking about a 'mean' value if all neutron seize to exist exactly after 14.7 minutes ?

You're the one misconstruing "mean" into NEUTRON HALF LIFE, not the nuclear physicists who did the test.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
Complete and utter fail. You're in denial, idiot-boy. It is very clear what those detections are of, you cretin. Look at the third paper, and the figure I linked to. What does it say, ?


jonesy/k131415...........your "third paper" reference has nothing to do with the test run you were originally making reference to which contained no references to NEUTRON HALF LIFE, or even a suggestion during the run or conclusion of that test run that "mean" has anything to do with NEUTRON HALF LIFE.
kl31415
4 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019


You're the one misconstruing "mean" into NEUTRON HALF LIFE, not the nuclear physicists who did the test.



Aaw, I almost feel bad for you now.

You can't even quote our posts without editing them ?

That is just sad, I am sad.

Can you please point any place on this thread where any one us said - MEAN HALF LIFE ???

How does one grown up get to be so smart and solve differential equations, but doesn't understand the basic concepts or the difference between half-life and mean lifetime ?

kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Should we paste the definitions of half-life and mean lifetime here so Benni can finally read them?
From Britannica :
Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay). Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours.

Also here, but too much equations for my silly brain...
http://hyperphysi...lif.html

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
Decay

mean-life, half-life and decay
mean life for particle decay
the decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life
decay constant, or mean lifetime
the probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function where λ is called the decay constant

half-life = Ln.mean-life
as we muddle through this life-time
in half-life of decay
there are two distinctions
decay and half-life is Ln.mean-life
as half-life is Ln.mean-life
mean-life is half-life
as to speak of half- life is to speak of mean-life
mean-life and half-life are one of the same mean simply half-life decay
where
simply decay means after a set time the particle is simply no more
as mean-life is Obfuscation
to simply confuse
when this neutron is no more
to obfuscate
to make it seem
as though this neutron is still around in Ln.mean-life half-life decay
kl31415
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Let's do half-life now :)

Britannica :
Half-life, in radioactivity, the interval of time required for one-half of the atomic nuclei of a radioactive sample to decay (change spontaneously into other nuclear species by emitting particles and energy), or, equivalently, the time interval required for the number of disintegrations per second of a radioactive material to decrease by one-half.

Another link :
http://hyperphysi....html#c1
kl31415
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019

decay and half-life is Ln.mean-life
as half-life is Ln.mean-life
mean-life is half-life
as to speak of half- life is to speak of mean-life
mean-life and half-life are one of the same mean simply half-life decay
where
simply decay means after a set time the particle is simply no more
as mean-life is Obfuscation
to simply confuse
when this neutron is no more
to obfuscate
to make it seem
as though this neutron is still around in Ln.mean-life half-life decay


You do understand, that with this little scribble, you've actually went completely against your dear pal Benni, who claims half-life doesn't exist for Beta decay.

This is hilarious ! LMAO

Please don't go away, I need some amusement for the next hour on the way home ;)
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
kl31415 infamous half a neutron
Let's do half-life now :)
Britannica :
Half-life, in radioactivity, the interval of time required for one-half of the atomic nuclei of a radioactive sample to decay (change spontaneously into other nuclear species by emitting particles and energy), or, equivalently, the time interval required for the number of disintegrations per second of a radioactive material to decrease by one-half.
Another link :
http://hyperphysi....html#c1

Here we go round the mulberry bush
in
kl31415 infamous half a neutron
welcome to the club of golden stars kl31415
you have been anointed by JD as you receive those glittering golden stars
in the days, months, years
to come
As you contemplate your fin rot under your bridge
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
It is free neutrons that we speak
not Ln.mean-life half-life
Free neutrons simply
cease to exist
after
14.7minutes
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
That is so cute :)

Do you even understand what you wrote ?

Half-life wouldn't be a term if your previous statement were true !!!

Do you not understand that half-life wouldn't exist if a particle would decay in the same amount of time every time you would measure it.

So mean lifetime wouldn't be called mean, and half-life wouldn't exist...

The Interwebz never cease to amaze !
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
This is why it's Obfuscation
kl31415> That is so cute :)

Do you even understand what you wrote ?

Half-life wouldn't be a term if your previous statement were true !!!

Do you not understand that half-life wouldn't exist if a particle would decay in the same amount of time every time you would measure it.

So mean lifetime wouldn't be called mean, and half-life wouldn't exist...

The Interwebz never cease to amaze !

This is the whole point
no one wants to admit a free neutron simply decays in 14.7minutes
have you not cottoned on yet
this is a battles of wills
even though
in the meantime
The neutron is simply no more, having decayed in 14.7minutes
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
Complete and utter fail. You're in denial, idiot-boy. It is very clear what those detections are of, you cretin. Look at the third paper, and the figure I linked to. What does it say, ?


jonesy/k131415...........your "third paper" reference has nothing to do with the test run you were originally making reference to which contained no references to NEUTRON HALF LIFE, or even a suggestion during the run or conclusion of that test run that "mean" has anything to do with NEUTRON HALF LIFE.


Wrong, idiot-boy. They measure the number of neutrons after numerous runs of various time periods. They are still detecting neutrons at 3000s. And that completely contradicts your idiotic assertions. You lose. Loser.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2019
Wow.

Good effort, RealityCheck, but clearly pointless. And kl31415 should get credit for trying to translate.

atomic nucleus =/= free neutron

time =/= arbitrary measurement of time

A black hole by definition cannot emit light, therefore no picture possible. Could block light from behind, but first you have to know there is a light source behind, and that gravitational lensing is not obscuring the locations of things.

You are talking about different things, talking past each other. Clearly on purpose.

Pick starting points that you know the other guy won't accept as premises, and you can "prove" he doesn't understand. Choose terminology that does not accommodate definition of his terms, and you can "prove" he speaks nonsense.

Trolls under the Bridge of Babel, spitting from both sides.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
kl31415, simply decay is beta-decay, not Ln.mean-life half-life decay
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
Aaaw, kawai :)))

So scientists don't want to admit a scientific fact because they are embarrassed??? LMAO

So how do you explain neutrons decaying before or after the 14.7 minutes ???

I know, I know - it's all lies from the scientists, but please endulge me with your explanation of how they are wrong with making and repeating the measurements.

My pint is getting closer :)

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Complete and utter fail. You're in denial, idiot-boy. It is very clear what those detections are of, you cretin. Look at the third paper, and the figure I linked to. What does it say, ?


jonesy/k131415...........your "third paper" reference has nothing to do with the test run you were originally making reference to which contained no references to NEUTRON HALF LIFE, or even a suggestion during the run or conclusion of that test run that "mean" has anything to do with NEUTRON HALF LIFE.


Wrong, idiot-boy. They measure the number of neutrons after numerous runs of various time periods. They are still detecting neutrons at 3000s. And that completely contradicts your idiotic assertions. You lose. Loser.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
As beta decay is not Ln.mean-life half-life decay
Aaaw, kawai :)))
So scientists don't want to admit a scientific fact because they are embarrassed??? LMAO
So how do you explain neutrons decaying before or after the 14.7 minutes ???
I know, I know - it's all lies from the scientists, but please endulge me with your explanation of how they are wrong with making and repeating the measurements.
My pint is getting closer :)

As you down half a pint
then you down half a half a pint
then you down half a quarter pint
you have an eighth of a pint
till you get to the proverbial neutron
as you down half a neutron
the proverbial half a neutron
as beta decay is not Ln.mean-life half-life decay
the neutron simply ceases to exist in 14.7minutes
why
Half a neutron cannot exist; a free neutron simply ceases to exist in 14.7minutes
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
Half a neutron cannot exist; a free neutron simply ceases to exist in 14.7minutes


You are as thick as the idiot Benni. Half-life has nothing to do with half a neutron, you cretin. It is the time at which 50% of a sample of many neutrons, or other particles, will have decayed. And if you look at the papers and images I provided, you will see that a number of them continue to exist after 14.7 mins. Or are you too stupid to understand them? Why do you think I posted the images of those figures? So that even the hard of thinking nutjobs on here could understand it.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
Under the bridge of fin rot
kl31415> So how do you explain neutrons decaying before or after the 14.7 minutes ???

As 14.7minutes = 882s
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

What's in a few seconds in a free neutron life
to squabble of seconds is to obfuscate
as
nature is not a machine
how close do you require nature to 14.7minutes give or take the odd second
before
you accept the neutron that ceased to exist in 14.7minutes
has already ceased to exist
You obviously need to contemplate your fin rot under your bridge
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
Should we paste the definitions of half-life and mean lifetime here so Benni can finally read them?
From Britannica :
Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay). Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours.


Completely inapplicable to beta decay, and you don't even know why even though you supposedly read the definition. Go back right above & reread it, you will notice "nuclei" & "atomic species" of which a NEUTRON is neither, it is a sub-atomic particle not subject to the type of decay described above.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019

Completely inapplicable to beta decay, and you don't even know why even though you supposedly read the definition. Go back right above & reread it, you will notice "nuclei" & "atomic species" of which a NEUTRON is neither, it is a sub-atomic particle not subject to the type of decay described above.


Wrong, idiot. As shown. Beta-decay has a half-life.
https://www2.lbl....3/2.html (for the 2nd time!)
You really are as thick as pigsh!t.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
As 14.7minutes = 882s
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


Those are mean (average) lifetimes, you cretin. They are obtained from the experiments I linked to, you buffoon. Can you understand graphs, sh!tforbrains? Do you know how to read them?

What does this one tell you?
http://www.imageb...93397184

Idiot.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
They measure the number of neutrons after numerous runs of various time periods. They are still detecting neutrons at 3000s. And that completely contradicts your idiotic assertions.


Any neutron detector can be placed anywhere on the planet will record the decay of free neutrons as long as it is kept operating. It is impossible to cleanse any ambient environment of free neutrons because they are constantly being re-introduced into the environment by the constant radio-active decay of unstable atomic isotopes which release free unbound neutrons into the enviroment.

Your problem is fundamental, you do not understand there are three types of radio-active decay: Alpha, Beta, & Gamma. I'd suggest you read up on them & learn the differences between them before continuing to make yourself look even more like a fool than you already have.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
Your problem is fundamental, you do not understand there are three types of radio-active decay: Alpha, Beta, & Gamma. I'd suggest you read up on them & learn the differences between them before continuing to make yourself look even more like a fool than you already have.


I know the difference, you cretin. And those detectors are storage tanks, you idiot. That have been evacuated. You are too thick to understand the papers. You have been shown to be a buffoon, yet again. Suck it up, janitor boy.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
......constant radio-active decay of unstable atomic isotopes which release free unbound neutrons into the enviroment.


Cretin! Lol. Why do you think they evacuate the tank, you moron?

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
Prior to decay, this free neutron

Only the neutron exists
as the proton, electron, neutrino do not exist
the neutron is a single indivisible existential nucleon
it cannot be split into small parts
only when beta-decay begins are the proton, electron, neutrino created
as from time zero when the beta process of creation starts
the clock counteth downeth
because
as the proton emergeths, it does not decay
as the electron emergeths, it does not decay
as the neutrino emergeths, it does not decay
Beta decay is not Ln.mean-life half-life
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
you do not understand there are three types of radio-active decay: Alpha, Beta, & Gamma. I'd suggest you read up on them & learn the differences between them before continuing to make yourself look even more like a fool than you already have.


I know the difference
.......then why did you not recognize this description of gamma decay you copied from Britannica:

Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay). Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
Beta decay is not Ln.mean-life half-life


WTF are you on about, you fruitloop? It is an exponential decay curve. If there is a mean lifetime, then there is a half-life. mean lifetime x ln2. Why do you think so many scientific institutions accept this half-life? Because they are not uneducated cretins like you.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
.......then why did you not recognize this description of gamma decay you copied from Britannica:


I copied nothing from Britannica, you lying tosspot. I linked you to papers that show you are wrong. I linked you to a description of beta-decay from Lawrence Berkeley Lab. that shows you are wrong. You are just plain wrong, thicko. You simply do not understand the science. Get over it.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
Once this free neutron ejects a neutrino
it cannot wait for eternity of half-life
before it ejects an electron
and
so
as this electron is ejected
it cannot wait for eternity of half-life
before this proton is ejected
Beta decay is not Ln.mean-life half-life


Jonesdave> WTF are you on about, you fruitloop? It is an exponential decay curve. If there is a mean lifetime, then there is a half-life. mean lifetime x ln2. Why do you think so many scientific institutions accept this half-life? Because they are not uneducated cretins like you.

However you wriggle and squirm, JD
There is no Ln.mean-life half-life
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
......then why did you not recognize this description of gamma decay you copied from Britannica:


I copied nothing from Britannica, you lying tosspot. I linked you to papers that show you are wrong. I linked you to a description of beta-decay from Lawrence Berkeley Lab. that shows you are wrong. You are just plain wrong, thicko. You simply do not understand the science.


Yes, I see that you copied it from B, but you copied a description of Gamma Radiation Decay, not Beta Particle Decay.

Why do you insist on continuing to make the same mistake over & over again, that of applying Gamma Radiation Decay to Beta Particle Decay? You truly do have the mind's eye of an Anthropologist, always wandering out in the high weeds looking for another bone to pick, and then declare what a genius you fantasize yourself to be.

Cease it imagining that just because you are some kind physical therapist, and imagining working with Phds has an osmosis effect from them to you.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
Yes, I see that you copied it from B, but you copied a description of Gamma Radiation Decay, not Beta Particle Decay.


I have not copied that paragraph. Ever. Piss off with your lies, you sick ****.

Why do you insist on continuing to make the same mistake over & over again, that of applying Gamma Radiation Decay to Beta Particle Decay?


Beta-decay, you blind f***wit.
https://www2.lbl....3/2.html
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes.


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

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Read it and weep, you thick swine.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
No one wants to admit
An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes.

https://www2.lbl....3/2.html
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Read it and weep, you thick swine.

This free neutron ceases to exist in 14.7minutes
so
although
every one says it's mean-life is 14.7minutes
every one does not actually say it ceases exist in 14.7minutes
because
it is not specifically written
because, my friend JD
it is implied it ceases to exist in 14.7minutes
as now, JD
yourself also will not say it ceases to exist in 14.7minutes
because it is not specifically stated it ceases to exist
because
There is, for some reason, ambiguity written into the experimental results for some unknown reason
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes.

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

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Read it and weep


They're discussing AGGREGATE PARTICLE DECAY.......this is not BETA PARTICLE DECAY. Then you are you write this, a description of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY:

Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay). Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours.

You get so wound up & watching you derail is just so entertaining

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
JD, what could be clearer

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

What do these results imply, JD
that
Cold beam measurement = 887.7±2.2 s
mean this neutron lets loose
7 cats, with 7 kits
or
it means this neutron ceases to exist in 887.7±2.2 s
it means, JD
the demise of these 7 cats, with 7 kits
As in 14.7minutes this neutron is no more
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
There is, for some reason, ambiguity written into the experimental results for some unknown reason


>granDy.......it's really that the nuclear physicists doing the test would expect a brain trained in this field of endeavor to know that the time frame for data acquisition expired after all the ORIGINAL NEUTRONS had passed through the scintillation detectors & were counted & found equal to the quantity from the Neutron Source, at this point the LIFETIME determination is concluded.

But what jonesy/k131415 want to do is skew the data to include counting anomalous neutrons aside from the ones never produced in neutron source.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
JD, what does this result actually mean, in your own words?
Cold beam measurement = 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes
What were they measuring?
Why was this result obtained?
What happened at 887.7s?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
JD, what does this result actually mean, in your own words?
Cold beam measurement = 887.7±2.2 s or 14.8 minutes
What were they measuring?
Why was this result obtained?
What happened at 887.7s?


......in addition you could also have asked him why the bumps beyond the range of the lifetime measurement were not included with the data used to calculate LIFETIME DECAY. But here again granDy is the problem with the novice that jonesy/k131415 is.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
There is, for some reason, ambiguity written into the experimental results for some unknown reason


>granDy.......it's really that the nuclear physicists doing the test would expect a brain trained in this field of endeavor to know that the time frame for data acquisition expired after all the ORIGINAL NEUTRONS had passed through the scintillation detectors & were counted & found equal to the quantity from the Neutron Source, at this point the LIFETIME determination is concluded.

But what jonesy/k131415 want to do is skew the data to include counting anomalous neutrons aside from the ones never produced in neutron source.

Obviously you have to match the original source neutrons to the neutrons finality as they pass through the final detector
but
this does not explain JD and co reluctance to go beyond the final second
As though this neutron is inside an event horizon so the question is forbidden
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf]http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf[/url]

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf]http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf[/url]
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."
http://http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf


And let me explain to YOU why you're quoting this stuff, it's because you have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what it is they're talking about, so YOU need to quote it so as to avoid making a wrong conclusion and being caught at it by Benni, who will again ask you when you're gonna learn to write equations.
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni my post wasn't all quote.
Here is what I said:

"They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later."

Is there something wrong with my take based on those quotes?

You are trying to twist what the paper actually says to confuse us.
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni I'm pretty sure that they were pretty sure that they started out with about 40000 UCN at 100s then ran their experiment up to 3000s and they still had UCNs left over.
I'm pretty sure of this because I can read.

I use the quotes so you can actually see what was written in the paper that you didn't read.
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni
It's easy to tell when your wrong. You start with the personal insults.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni
It's easy to tell when your wrong. You start with the personal insults.


jimbo, the name calling rants are about all you've ever been about.

Now, if you want to get serious about the science of Neutron Beta Decay, you need to get it under your belt that it is not the following as previously posited by jonesy/k131415:

"Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay).Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours".

So, can you agree that the above quote is NOT the Beta Particle Decay path of a neutron?
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni I'm not talking about jonesdave I'm talking about this.

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf]http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf[/url]

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni I'm not talking about jonesdave I'm talking about this.
......first answer the question:

"Mean life, in radioactivity, average lifetime of all the nuclei of a particular unstable atomic species. This time interval may be thought of as the sum of the lifetimes of all the individual unstable nuclei in a sample, divided by the total number of unstable nuclei present. The mean life of a particular species of unstable nucleus is always 1.443 times longer than its half-life (time interval required for half the unstable nuclei to decay).Lead-209, for example, decays to bismuth-209 with a mean life of 4.69 hours and a half-life of 3.25 hours".

Can you agree that the above quote is NOT the Beta Particle Decay path of a neutron? Yes or No?

If you cannot answer the question then trying to have a conversation with you about anything to do with Beta Particle Decay is futile, it will tell me you do not comprehend ANYTHING about basic nuclear physics...so, your answer?
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni I'm not talking about jonesdave I'm talking about this.

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf]http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf[/url]

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2019
It's not very bright, @jimmy; you'll have to say it about fifty more times.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni I'm not talking about jonesdave I'm talking about this.

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "


Jimbo, four days ago you never knew the the 3 measurement techniques of the beta decay rate of a neutron existed until Benni informed you. Now you're caught in a quagmire because you don't comprehend the data for one of the measurement methodologies I put you on to. What's your question?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni:

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)." http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "


@jimmy, here, I'll help.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
Just for the record, both half-life and average (or if you prefer mean) lifetime indicate that for each, some particles decay before, and some decay after, but by the stated half life:

Half of the particles have decayed <- why it's called a "half-life"

This is true whether the particles are neutrons or nuclei.

This is why different nuclei have different half-lives.

And this is a point you have not acknowledged; why does Uranium-238 have a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and Uranium-239 one of 23.45 minutes?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
And the difference between half-life and average lifetime? Here it is, at least for subnuclear particles that undergo spontaneous decay, like neutrons and radionucides:

https://en.wikipe...al_decay

The first two sections are titled, "mean lifetime" and "half-life."

What kind of idiot can't read Wikipedia?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
The human understanding of decay

This neutron is not decaying
there are no particles except this neutron
this neutron
creates a neutrino which does not decay
this neutron
creates an electron which does not decay
this neutron
creates a proton which does not decay
this neutron
creates these elements as they do not exist
Decay is particles diminishing in numbers which is Ln mean-life half-life
This neutron is creating particles which do not decay
if anyone cares to look at a exponential decay graph
It demonstrates a diminishing decay curve
because
the particles are diminishing in number
This neutrons particles are increasing in number of particle that are not decaying in number
This is not decay in any Cambridge dictionary of the meaning of decay
This neutron is creating pristine neutrinos, pristine electrons, and pristine protons

The human understanding of decay
A mother is not decaying into a mother and child!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
So, can you agree that the above quote is NOT the Beta Particle Decay path of a neutron?


No, we cannot agree. For the umpteenth time, thicko;

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

An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes


jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
They're discussing AGGREGATE PARTICLE DECAY.......this is not BETA PARTICLE DECAY. Then you are you write this, a description of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY:


You stupid idiot. The page is entitled 'Beta Decay'!

kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
And the difference between half-life and average lifetime? Here it is, at least for subnuclear particles that undergo spontaneous decay, like neutrons and radionucides:

https://en.wikipe...al_decay

The first two sections are titled, "mean lifetime" and "half-life."

What kind of idiot can't read Wikipedia?


I know the answer to this ! :D

@Benni
The reason I like to use Wikipedia as my textbook is because it has references to actual research and papers.

You know those silly numbers they put in brackets after the sentence, right ?

Again, Britannica ;)

https://www.brita.../neutron

A free neutron—one that is not incorporated into a nucleus—is subject to radioactive decay of a type called beta decay. It breaks down into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino (the antimatter counterpart of the neutrino, a particle with no charge and little or no mass); the half-life for this decay process is 614 seconds..
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Beta decay, for the terminally stupid, is decay where a beta particle is emitted. A beta particle is an electron or a positron. In the case of neutron decay, it is beta minus decay, as an electron is emitted.
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
I am amazed that so many online sources have the same understanding of free neutron decay and they all call it Beta decay...

It is absolutely astonishing that the whole world of physics is wrong, all these people embarrassing themselves by putting out this corrupt data out and putting their names on the work they've done.

But a single nuclear engineer knows better, the dude who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'mean', but solves differential equations based on science before the 1940's, because he is a living Methuselah.
I pity the fool that employed you, Benni.
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
For the failed senor poet granville583762

You mentioned this some posts ago @granville583762
You asked how ? Here is an explanation.

You do have to accept though that even you do not understand the words, it does not mean that it is wrong, it simply means you do not understand. :)

You are welcome !

https://www.brita...ta-decay

In electron capture, an electron orbiting around the nucleus combines with a nuclear proton to produce a neutron, which remains in the nucleus, and a neutrino, which is emitted. Most commonly the electron is captured from the innermost, or K, shell of electrons around the atom; for this reason, the process often is called K-capture. As in positron emission, the nuclear positive charge and hence the atomic number decreases by one unit, and the mass number remains the same.

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
There is at this time of day, jonesdave
only one person who reads my comments
in this timely manner jonesdave
as that is your good self jonesdave
and
as I am officially on your ignore list
you can't comment directly
as you cannot reasonably rate my comments
so jonesdave as you talk to your hat
you have left your timely rating in the form of your hat
klπ
just take me of your ignore list and have done with it, jonesdave
you know you do not want me on your ignore list
The worrying is it exacerbating the symptoms of your fin rot under your bridge
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Talking to oneself as everyone is on this ignore list

Jonesdave
every one told you this would happen
as you increasingly
put us all
as commentators on your ignore list
as you build your comprehensive ignore list
that the day would arrive
as substantive numbers go on your ignore list
that you end up talking to your self
that day appears to have arrived jonesdave
you are talking to your self
only yourself jonesdave can remedy your predicament
as
simple as it sounds
it is simplicity its self
tear up this ignore list
take everyone of this ignore list
and
All your worries will simply melt away
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Thank you jonesdave
For rating my comments as you talk to your hat klπ*1 / 5 (1)
Take us of your ignore list
The worrying is exacerbating the symptoms of your fin rot, jonesdave
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Thank you Da Schneib
for reading my comments
we all as commentators
hope you find them as interesting as jonesdave
so even as your friend, jonesdave
paid me the courtesy of reading our comments
you probably can now see the deficiencies in the implementation of ignore
these symptoms, we all advised jonesdave would occur
We just did not think Da Schneib, we would see them so expediently
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
> granDy,

The Pop-Cosmology groupies living here will never give up their war on science. Four days ago jimbo, jonesy/k131415, & schneibo had never in their lifetimes heard of:

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

......so Benni here brings these three measurement techniques to their attention & they go apoplectic, they didn't know what to do with it at first.

This time last year the above named monikers never even knew a free neutron had a 14.7 minute lifetime beta decay rate, they went apoplectic & off the rails because never in the history of this chatroom had ANYONE previously brought it up. Then along came Benni to spoil the road to their precious neutron stars they thought was so smoothly paved that no one would ever find the potholes in the theory, the potholes being of course the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free neutron.
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Still no response from Benni on this:

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf]http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf[/url]

They seem pretty sure of the number of neutrons they started with.
So with approximately 40000 neutrons there were still some left 3000 seconds later.

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s. Then the detec-
tor shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "
Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
"The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40000 after 100s storage time..."

"the UCN were held for the chosen storage time ranging for
the large trap length of 75 cm from 100 to 3000 s."

"Then the detector shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. "

http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

Tell us about these surviving UCNs from the initial 40000 at 100ms Benni? How is that possible? Was it a miracle?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Benni, this was brought up on PW, as "Cold beam measurement" was a favourite topic going back to 2004, as was the "neutrino changing flavours as energy levels in flight" a favourite
but still all talk of what occurred at the 14.7mimutes was firmly put in place
As this is why your neutron is intriguing
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
> continuing to granDy.........,

When I exposed the potholes to the neutron star theory by pointing out the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a neutron. I was exposing the biggest open secret Cosmologists do not want to talk about, the problem of an aggregate population of free neutrons that according to Pop-Cosmologists which never decay.

Pop-Cosmology wants a free unencumbered path to neutron stars because they are the seed to the formation of the holiest of Pop-Cosmology's holy grails, BLACK HOLES. Without neutron stars black hole theory falls flat on it's face.

So what's going on here in this chatroom is a cloistered little group of Pop-Cosmology neophytes coming up with every sideshow argument which they think can negate the well established 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron unbound from a nucleus, they don't care about the SCIENCE of the three measurement techniques, they care ONLY about blocking from discussion questions they don't want to answer.
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019

Then along came Benni to spoil the road to their precious neutron stars they thought was so smoothly paved that no one would ever find the potholes in the theory, the potholes being of course the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free neutron.


Ah, if only the grand differential equationist here could actually understand the measurements.

I am inclined to think that Benni here thinks that the mean lifetime means the 'mean' calculated from these three measurements...

It seems useless to paste links to experiments done with these devices, as Benni doesn't read and refuses to accept fact presented.
I would argue that Benni doesn't even know how a differential equation looks like as it seems he has difficulties with understanding mean lifetime and half-life.

They are quite heavy concepts, especially the half-life where the neutron gets halved into half a neutron.. (facepalm)

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
These fin rot casualties

So now we know
why
the highways agency is building motorways over bridges
with appropriately situated slip roads
because
of this increasing demand for bridge accommodation
because
as the fin rot symptoms multiply
rapid high speed transport
is
available to Addenbrookes fin rot facility, with it busways
as Cambridge is investing heavily with its high speed links and motorways
With increasing fin rot causalities from this London metropolis!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
Still no response from Benni on this:

"The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3 The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (see Fig. 2)."


jimbo, four days ago you never knew such a write-up of data existed, you had never even heard of ultra cold neutrons.

So now that for the first time in your Pop-Cosmology fantasies, you suggest it is not fair that the nuclear physicists doing a neutron beta decay run not include the decay of an excess generation of neutrons that were not needed to do the measurement.

It comes down to this jimbo, the nuclear physicists did not need ALL the neutrons generated by the neutron generator so they threw them away, and that is what is getting your undies all up in a wad, that the scientists threw away decaying neutrons that would have skewed the data.

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
> continuing to granDy.........,
When I exposed the potholes to the neutron star theory by pointing out the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a neutron. I was exposing the biggest open secret Cosmologists do not want to talk about, the problem of an aggregate population of free neutrons that according to Pop-Cosmologists which never decay.
Pop-Cosmology wants a free unencumbered path to neutron stars because they are the seed to the formation of the holiest of Pop-Cosmology's holy grails, BLACK HOLES. Without neutron stars black hole theory falls flat on it's face.

As Mary Bell was refused her Nobel prize
this neutron star was born out of Mary Bell's unaccredited discovery
the pulsar star
as before this pulsar star
this BH existed in theory
as a non spinning BH
why was a pulsar turned in to a neutron star as a BH
as now
even as they resurrect this non spinning BH
This non spinning BH theory is null and void
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019

As Mary Bell was refused her Nobel prize
this neutron star was born out of Mary Bell's unaccredited discovery
the pulsar star
as before this pulsar star
this BH existed in theory
as a non spinning BH
why was a pulsar turned in to a neutron star as a BH
as now
even as they resurrect this non spinning BH
This non spinning BH theory is null and void


Incoherence is your best friend :)
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019

It comes down to this jimbo, the nuclear physicists did not need ALL the neutrons generated by the neutron generator so they threw them away, and that is what is getting your undies all up in a wad, that the scientists threw away decaying neutrons that would have skewed the data.



But you've shown everyone here that you don't understand the results of the measurements, that you don't understand mean lifetime and half-life.

You keep pasting the results of the three measurements and you don't even understand what you are pasting.

What is the point of this ?

What is the point of repeating your own statements which are completely uncorroborated ?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
It comes down to this jimbo, the nuclear physicists did not need ALL the neutrons generated by the neutron generator so they threw them away, and that is what is getting your undies all up in a wad, that the scientists threw away decaying neutrons that would have skewed the data.


Complete and utter nonsense. You lost. Get over it. You don't understand mean lifetime and you don't understand half-life. As shown by this idiotic, laughable statement of ignorance;

You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

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.


https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Lol, what a pillock!

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
jonesdaveklπ
it almost sounds Greek
it is Greek
it is Greek, jonesdaveklπ
different is good, jonesdaveklπ
the change might be beneficial to your fin rot under your bridge
jonesdaveklπ
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
After your Christmas break, jonesdaveklπ

What a spectacular way
To make
Your entrance
In
This new year
Of our Lord
This 2019
jonesdaveklπ
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019

You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

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.


https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Lol, what a pillock!



Exactly half of 15 minutes, LMAO.
I am dying here, hahahahahaha.

Half of its mass would be gone !

Brilliant hahahahahahah :D

I wonder what differential equations is Benni solving with this level of genius.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
jonesdaveklπ
it almost sounds Greek
it is Greek
it is Greek, jonesdaveklπ
different is good, jonesdaveklπ
the change might be beneficial to your fin rot under your bridge
jonesdaveklπ


> granDy.......I sense you too notice the sane thing I've been noticing, that when jonesy shows up his doppleganger k131415 shows up, thus my indicating moniker of jonesy/k131415 for the past couple of days.

Yeah, jonesdave & k131415 use all the same semantic metaphors, those figures of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable........jonesy tends to get a bit lonely, so to take up the empty feeling after launching another name calling rant, he immediately starts talking to himself through his other moniker.

kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019

jonesdaveklπ
it almost sounds Greek
it is Greek
it is Greek, jonesdaveklπ
different is good, jonesdaveklπ
the change might be beneficial to your fin rot under your bridge
jonesdaveklπ

After your Christmas break, jonesdavekl�

What a spectacular way
To make
Your entrance
In
This new year
Of our Lord
This 2019
jonesdavekl�


Oh, no incoherent science this time ? Aaaw...

No one cares for gods here, I would think at least...

You are very special, I can see this. :)

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
.jonesy tends to get a bit lonely, so to take up the empty feeling after launching another name calling rant, he immediately starts talking to himself through his other moniker.


Making stuff up again, D-K boy? It's all you've got, isn't it? Don't understand science, so you just tell lies. Sad and pathetic.

kl31415
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2019


> granDy.......I sense you too notice the sane thing I've been noticing, that when jonesy shows up his doppleganger k131415 shows up, thus my indicating moniker of jonesy/k131415 for the past couple of days.

Yeah, jonesdave & k131415 use all the same semantic metaphors, those figures of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable........jonesy tends to get a bit lonely, so to take up the empty feeling after launching another name calling rant, he immediately starts talking to himself through his other moniker.



Ha, you wish :)

I am not that into you, Benni.

I don't go for WooPeeps, sorry.

But it kinda makes me smile, that your genius, differential-equation solving brain, came to this brilliant conclusion.

Your ego is bigger than Sagittarius A*, muahhahahaha.

https://www.urban...rm=Benni

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
..........and the doppleganger does it again, jonesy shows up & immediately he starts babbling to himself, k131415.
rrwillsj
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
granny. be a nice chap & help benni get dressed
he/she/it looks really stupid
with their pants over his/her/its head
with their arms sticking out the legholes,

& that shirt tied around his/her/its waist?
Isn't covering up the leaking full diaper!

If you inmates are not allowed
to help one another?
At least have the decency
to call an orderly for the cretin.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
..........and the doppleganger does it again, jonesy shows up & immediately he starts babbling to himself, k131415.


You really are a twisted POS, aren't you? You lost, woo boy. Get over it. Science really isn't your thing, is it?
kl31415
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
..........and the doppleganger does it again, jonesy shows up & immediately he starts babbling to himself, k131415.


Aaw :)
Is this how the discussion ends ? :D
Accusations of multiple accounts ???

Cannot refute the facts anymore ?

Aaaw :)))
kl31415
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
..........and the doppleganger does it again, jonesy shows up & immediately he starts babbling to himself, k131415.


You really are a twisted POS, aren't you? You lost, woo boy. Get over it. Science really isn't your thing, is it?


Don't be too harsh on him.

The cognitive powers are not strong with this one, as the basic concepts seem to be a painful area...

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


This makes me laugh so hard. :D
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
This makes me laugh so hard. :D


Ohh, there is more;

.......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 ?


Lol.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
Yeah, they both mentioned the same argument in this thread, but even the sentence I pasted ends up with a hilarity as the neutron losses half of its mass.

...half it's mass would be gone...


This is gold ! LMAO
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
You Cannot Be Serious

In only just a year
how the mighty have fallen
as this is not how it use to be
this is not how they were used
they were used
in more esoteric form
more discrete
with more subtlety
more finesse
and most definitely
as never for this purpose
if this had not been observed
with ones eyes
a tale worth telling
would have been a tale
as this not a tale
as it is a true tale
as John McEnroe used to say
in between jumping up and down on his racket
John McEnroe "You Cannot Be Serious"
https://www.youtu...K1wyrrAU
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
This Magnetar Mystery
> granDy.......I sense you too notice the sane thing I've been noticing, that when jonesy shows up his doppleganger k131415 shows up, thus my indicating moniker of jonesy/k131415 for the past couple of days.
Yeah, jonesdave & k131415 use all the same semantic metaphors, those figures of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable........jonesy tends to get a bit lonely, so to take up the empty feeling after launching another name calling rant, he immediately starts talking to himself through his other moniker.

Benni, even as DS is an elusive spirit of late
this magnetar mystery
is in a strange sort of way
a sad way to end
Such a spectacular article
but
this is only one of the symptoms of fin rot
there are many more symptoms to come
each worse than the preceding ones
so
as they say
Watch this space
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2019
The End of Magnetar
kl31415
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
LMAO

Thanks for the entertainment guys, it's been a pleasure ! :)

Speak soon, hehe.
dnatwork
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2019
I owe an apology to trolls under bridges everywhere.
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
@Benni
Here is a half life calculator
https://www.omnic...alf-life

Use these values:
Initial quantity: 40000 (neutrons)
Half Life time: 10.2 minutes
Total time: 14.7 minutes

Note the results:
Remaining Quantity: 14730.67 (neutrons)
Decay Constant: 0.0679556/minute
Mean Lifetime: 14.7155 minutes)

So you see there are still 14730.67 neutrons at 14.7 minutes!!!
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
@Benni
Here is a half life calculator
https://www.omnic...alf-life

And if you plug in 10.2 minutes for the total time you get 20000 neutrons! Half of them!!!!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2019
@@kl31415.
You may as well have asked where Einstein's ideas/understandings came from as he proceeded to 'connect' all the MANY KNOWN SCIENCE 'dots' (which everyone else was unable to do) in order to come up with his NOVEL (post-Newtonian 'textbooks') ALTERNATIVE understanding of GRAVITY; ie: GENERAL RELATIVITY. :)

Just picture how your blanket demand for 'links' would've gone down with EINSTEIN, @kl31415. :)

Can't you just 'see' Einstein regarding you as he would a 'dullard'....for only such would 'expect/demand' PRIOR TEXTBOOKS/LINKS regarding the 'source' of his ENTIRELY NEW and REVOLUTIONARY Gravity perspective/theory.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, we have an Einstein-like genius over here ! :)
Either you are threatened by anyone with an original mind/perspective better than one's contemporaries (hence the Einstein example)...Or you are being facetious, and so unfortunately missing the point of that apt response to your original sarcastic gambit. Discern. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2019
@Ojorf.
@kl31415.
So where does this knowledge comes from then..
You may as well have asked where Einstein's ideas/understandings came from as he proceeded to 'connect' all the MANY KNOWN SCIENCE 'dots' (which everyone else was unable to do) in order to come up with his NOVEL (post-Newtonian 'textbooks') ALTERNATIVE understanding of GRAVITY; ie: GENERAL RELATIVITY. :)
Damn, some days I just don't know who is the thickest poster here, you Benni or SEU.
It would appear to be YOU, Ojorf. Since you have YET to 'twig' to the fact that I am the only one here (not excluding you/gang) who has been confirmed correct all along on many fronts by recent mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum-physics discoveries/reviews. While you/gang keep denying/insulting due to your own 'slowness' in discerning who is correct (me) and who are actually incorrect/trolls (which so far would appear to include you, Ojorf, if above-quoted troll post by you is any guide). Wise up; discern, Ojorf. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2019
@kl31415.
...
https://phys.org/...k_1.html
...made yesterday to:
@SkyLight
@Ojorf.
Note the usual misinformed trolling/insulting by them while ignoring the many recent/past instances when I have been correct all along (and they NOT so).
ps: BEWARE the Captain Stumpy corrupting menace...
Parental guidance noted, ta.
Very wise. Kudos.
So you were right about this thing you posted, I'm not gonna waste time on on that, good for you...
The more crucial thing to realize is not so much that I WAS correct and my detractors incorrect, but that I have been trolled, ignored, bot-voted '1' etc DESPITE BEING correct and THEY not. What does THAT tell you, about those who do things like that, mate? It should at least cause you to pause and think; to better discern between your interlocutors.
...but none of you seems to be able to hold a decent discussion...
I'm the one being trolled precisely BECAUSE I try to discuss fairly. I cannot answer for others. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2019
@kl31415
What is your view for free neutron decay?
I previously (in other threads/discussions) pointed out that statistical 'half-life' concept may be more misleading than helpful if applied to FREE Neutron decay lifetime/rates in FREE MOVING streams/clouds of FREE (ie, not bound in atomic nuclei) Neutrons; because EACH individual Neutron IS 'free'; and so has its OWN uniquely DIFFERING energy/motional states relative to every other free Neutron in a collection of 'unbound' Neutrons; which introduces TIME DILATION considerations/variations which ATOMIC NUCLEI (atomically bound) Neutrons do not experience in BULK MASS states of such atoms.

Sure, one CAN 'simplistically' derive/apply 'half-life statistics' to collections of free Neutron decays; BUT it may distract from deeper understanding of what is actually happening to EACH 'free' NEUTRON in such 'free' streaming/trapping conditions.

THAT was the (subtle but crucial) consideration all 'sides' should be aware of. :)
IwinUlose
5 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2019
Act II: "Check Your Reality"
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2019
@IwinUlose.
Act II: "Check Your Reality"
It's THE objective consistent scientific physical universal reality that you need to familiarize yourself with, mate; hence my objective correct posts for your and others' benefit. Try better to discern between your interlocutors and then try harder to eschew your own personal fantasies based 'reality' you have in mind due to whatever subjective biases and prejudices you happen to be operating/trolling with at any one moment. Good luck. :)
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2019
@RealityCheck you said:

"I previously (in other threads/discussions) pointed out that statistical 'half-life' concept may be more misleading than helpful if applied to FREE Neutron decay lifetime/rates in FREE MOVING streams/clouds of FREE (ie, not bound in atomic nuclei) Neutrons; because EACH individual Neutron IS 'free'; and so has its OWN uniquely DIFFERING energy/motional states relative to every other free Neutron in a collection of 'unbound' Neutrons; which introduces TIME DILATION considerations/variations which ATOMIC NUCLEI (atomically bound) Neutrons do not experience in BULK MASS states of such atoms."

Holy word salad Batman. Please tell us what your "deeper understanding" of what is "actually" happening to a free neutron.
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2019
@RealityCheck
And please explain it to Benni as well. He thinks a newly freed neutron is a time bomb that detonates exactly at 14 minutes and 42 seconds.

kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2019


I'm the one being trolled precisely BECAUSE I try to discuss fairly. I cannot answer for others. :)


@RealityCheck
No, you don't, mate.

You refuse to provide any links after your 'scientifically proven' statements, oh except for that one time where you were correct about something on a different thread - that one time...

Time dilation - can you elaborate ?

Are you a physicist ? As you so smart and me so dumb...

Either you are threatened by anyone with an original mind/perspective better than one's contemporaries (hence the Einstein example)...Or you are being facetious, and so unfortunately missing the point of that apt response to your original sarcastic gambit. Discern. :)


Original mind - where is the evidence supporting these ideas ?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2019
@kl31415.
except for that one time where you were correct..- that one time...
Shows how much you (don't) know of what has been going down here for years, mate. It's not just "that one time"....it's many many times!...that I pointed to mainstream reports here confirming me correct on one or other point I tried to get through to those who sadly prefer attacking/insulting/trolling instead of actually learning and/or correcting their patently incorrect 'understandings'. Some actually complained that I pointed such things out TOO often! Can't win, hey?
Time dilation - can you elaborate?
Read wiki re Muon (lifetimes in different speed regimes). Similar relativity physics/internal dynamics as for 'free' Neutron speeds/lifetimes.
...original mind/perspective better than one's contemporaries....eg, Einstein)..
Original mind - where is the evidence supporting these ideas?
It's all in the literature, piecemeal. Original minds can connect all the dots. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I previously (in other threads/discussions) pointed out that statistical 'half-life' concept may be more misleading than helpful if applied to FREE Neutron decay lifetime/rates in FREE MOVING streams/clouds of FREE (ie, not bound in atomic nuclei) Neutrons; because EACH individual Neutron IS 'free'; and so has its OWN uniquely DIFFERING energy/motional states relative to every other free Neutron in a collection of 'unbound' Neutrons; which introduces TIME DILATION considerations/variations which ATOMIC NUCLEI (atomically bound) Neutrons do not experience in BULK MASS states of such atoms.
Holy word salad Batman.
In re speed affected lifetimes (eg, Time Dilation effect on decaying process) please refer to my "wiki/Muon" suggestion made in my above post to @kl31415.
Please tell us what your "deeper understanding" of what is "actually" happening to a free neutron.
That's one of the items in my reality-physics based ToE explanations to be published.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

I assume you won't tell us because you are going to charge 20 dollars for the knowledge.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

I assume you won't tell us because you are going to charge 20 dollars for the knowledge.
Mate, I have long said, and most recently again indicated in that other thread where you brought this up, the full and complete ToE work will be FREE ON LINE for anyone to read when published by me. Only special edition hard-copy books will be charged for to cover publishing/mailing costs. No financial gain sought from my scientific work. Cheers. :)

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

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