# Revealing the black hole at the heart of the galaxy

##### January 22, 2019, Netherlands Research School for Astronomy

Including the powerful ALMA into an array of telescopes for the first time, astronomers have found that the emission from the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* at the center of the galaxy comes from a smaller region than previously thought. This may indicate that a radio jet from Sagittarius A* is pointed almost directly toward us. The paper, led by the Nijmegen Ph.D. student Sara Issaoun, is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

A foggy cloud of hot gas has prevented astronomers from making sharp images of the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*, casting doubt on its true nature. Astronomers have now incorporated the powerful ALMA telescope in northern Chile into a global network of radio telescopes to peer through this fog, but the source keeps surprising them—its emission region is so small that the source may actually point directly at Earth.

Using the observation technique of very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) at a frequency of 86 GHz, which combines many telescopes to form a virtual telescope the size of the Earth, the team succeeded in mapping out the exact properties of the light scattering blocking our view of Sagittarius A*. The removal of most of the scattering effects has produced a first image of the surroundings of the black hole.

The high quality of the unscattered image has allowed the team to constrain theoretical models for the gas around Sagittarius A*. The bulk of the radio emission is coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the is pointing almost at us."

Issaoun's supervisor Heino Falcke, professor of radio astronomy at Radboud University, calls this very unusual, but he also no longer rules it out. Last year, Falcke would have considered this a contrived model, but recently the GRAVITY team came to a similar conclusion using ESO's Very Large Telescope Interferometer of optical telescopes and an independent technique. "Maybe this is true after all," concludes Falcke, "and we are looking at this beast from a very special vantage point."

Supermassive black holes are common in the centers of galaxies and may generate the most energetic phenomena in the known universe. It is believed that, around these black holes, matter falls in a rotating disk and part of this matter is expelled in opposite directions along two narrow beams, called jets, at speeds close to the speed of light, which typically produces a lot of radio emissions. Whether the radio emission we see from Sagittarius A* comes from the infalling gas or the outflowing jet is a matter of intense debate.

Sagittarius A* is the nearest and weighs about 4 million solar masses. Its apparent size in the sky is less than 100 millionth of a degree, which corresponds to the size of a tennis ball on the moon as seen from the Earth. The technique of VLBI is required to measure it. The resolution achieved with VLBI is further increased by the observation frequency. The highest frequency to date to use VLBI is 230 GHz. "The first observations of Sagittarius A* at 86 GHz date from 26 years ago, with only a handful of telescopes. Over the years, the quality of the data has improved steadily as more telescopes joined," says J. Anton Zensus, director of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy.

The research of Issaoun and international colleagues describes the first observations at 86 GHz in which ALMA also participated, by far the most sensitive at this frequency. ALMA became part of the Global Millimeter VLBI Array (GMVA) in April 2017. The participation of ALMA, made possible by the ALMA Phasing Project effort, has been decisive for the success of this project.

"Sagittarius A* is located in the southern sky, thus the participation of ALMA is important not only because of its sensitivity, but also because of its location in the southern hemisphere," says Ciriaco Goddi, from the European ALMA Regional Center node in the Netherlands (ALLEGRO, Leiden Observatory). In addition to ALMA, twelve telescopes in North America and Europe also participated in the network. The resolution achieved was twice as high as in previous observations at this frequency, and produced the first image of Sagittarius A* that is completely free of interstellar scattering, an effect caused by density irregularities in the ionized material along the line of sight between Sagittarius A* and the Earth.

To remove the scattering and obtain the image, the team used a technique developed by Michael Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

Future studies at different wavelengths will provide complementary information and further observational constraints for this source, which holds the key to a better understanding of black holes, the most exotic objects in the known universe.

Explore further: Image: Cloudlets swarm around our local supermassive black hole

More information: S. Issaoun et al. The Size, Shape, and Scattering of Sagittarius A* at 86 GHz: First VLBI with ALMA, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf732

## Related Stories

#### Image: Cloudlets swarm around our local supermassive black hole

October 23, 2018

This image from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) shows the area surrounding Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole that lurks at the centre of the Milky Way—highlighted here with a small circle. ...

#### APEX takes a glimpse into the heart of darkness

May 25, 2018

The 12 m radio telescope APEX in Chile has been outfitted with special equipment including broad bandwidth recorders and a stable hydrogen maser clock for performing joint interferometric observations with other telescopes ...

#### Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole

October 31, 2018

ESO's exquisitely sensitive GRAVITY instrument has added further evidence to the long-standing assumption that a supermassive black hole lurks in the centre of the Milky Way. New observations show clumps of gas swirling around ...

#### Mystery of coronae around supermassive black holes deepens

December 18, 2018

Researchers from RIKEN and JAXA have used observations from the ALMA radio observatory located in northern Chile and managed by an international consortium including the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) to ...

#### New Greenland telescope is up and running

June 14, 2018

Greenland can now brag about hosting a large, operational radio telescope, with a dish measuring 12 metres in diameter.

#### Researchers have created a virtual reality simulation of a supermassive black hole

November 19, 2018

The black hole at the centre of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been visualised in virtual reality for the first time. The details are described in an article published in the open access journal Computational Astrophysics ...

## Recommended for you

#### Archaeologists discover Incan tomb in Peru

February 16, 2019

Peruvian archaeologists discovered an Incan tomb in the north of the country where an elite member of the pre-Columbian empire was buried, one of the investigators announced Friday.

#### NASA heading back to Moon soon, and this time to stay

February 15, 2019

NASA is accelerating plans to return Americans to the Moon, and this time, the US space agency says it will be there to stay.

#### Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

#### What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

#### The friendly extortioner takes it all

February 15, 2019

Cooperating with other people makes many things easier. However, competition is also a characteristic aspect of our society. In their struggle for contracts and positions, people have to be more successful than their competitors ...

#### Environmental noise found to enhance the transport of energy across a line of ions

February 15, 2019

A team of researchers affiliated with several institutions in Austria and Germany has shown that introducing environmental noise to a line of ions can lead to enhanced transport of energy across them. In their paper published ...

#### Faculty beliefs about intelligence predict racial achievement gaps in STEM classes

February 15, 2019

In a major analysis of university faculty and students in science, technology, engineering and math, Indiana University social psychologists found that professors' beliefs about intelligence play a measurable role in the ...

##### RNP
3.3 / 5 (24) Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?
##### Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (23) Jan 22, 2019
I'm going with "no," since they'll still be denying it's a black hole.

They'll do the same with EHT images.

All that said, another impressive achievement for ALMA, and a tip-o-the-hat to the VLTI.
##### T_ Gutierrez
3.4 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
It is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth. Regardless, we have no stronger evidence of the ordinary existence of BHs.
##### Benni
2.4 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2019
"these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

Mister freelance journalist, you didn't read the second paragraph from the bottom of the page: "if there's one to be seen", this after all the hoopla they created over this:

".......coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the radio jet is pointing almost at us."

,,,,,,and all they detected was a low emission spectra of radio waves which out of almost all possibility of statistical probability is aimed right at planet Earth.

##### humy
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
It is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth.
How?
##### humy
4.2 / 5 (18) Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great that I will put most of those people who deny their existence into the same kind of category as flatEathers; OK, not QUITE as bad as flateathers but, still, similar enough to them especially as just like them they deny any evidence that contradicts their delusional beliefs no matter how good that evidence. I don't know what explanation they have for the observed gravitational effects and the event horizons etc.
##### wduckss
1.3 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2019
If the diameters of a galactical central object are estimated to be a few tens of thousands of light-years, the nature of the Milky Way's bar is actively debated, with estimates for its half-length and orientation spanning from 1 to 5 kpc (3,000-16,000 ly [26] or 40 thousand ly on the equator and 30 thousands ly (according to some other sources [27] ) from a pole to the other one. It's diameter: the size of a super-massive black hole is ~ 0,001-400 AU [28] – there is a disparity between a central point (a black hole should be there) and a pole of the central structure of a galaxy (different occurrences and the beginning of different radiation emissions are measured there).
doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13
##### humy
4.2 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
there is a disparity between a central point (a black hole should be there) and a pole of the central structure of a galaxy
You mean they are not at EXACTLY the same point?
But why should they be? -no blackhole theory I have heard of says they must be EXACTLY at the same point, only merely approximately, and I think it would be surprising if they were EXACTLY at the same point. So them not being at EXACTLY at the same point would appear to not contradict any of the theories.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2019
t is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth.

How?
.......a statistical improbability called LUCK.
##### cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great

Except, as noted in article above, that few if any observations actually match predictions. The religiousness on display by the darkists is somewhat amusing.
##### MrBojangles
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2019
The religiousness on display by the darkists is somewhat amusing.

Says the Thunderdolt zealot.
##### dnatwork
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Hey, RealityCheck, don't bother with this group. They have never even tried to talk to one another.

Deniers: There is something there with a lot of gravity and a very small diameter. That picture up there is a picture of whatever you call that thing. I don't care about the failings of the math in the standard model. That's just math. Get an arithmetic that doesn't allow division by zero, if you want it to correspond to natural systems. I know it's unfortunate, but it's true that you have to come up with a much better option in order to sway the opinion of the crowd.
##### dnatwork
2.9 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
Cold lcdm-ers: They are not saying there is nothing there with strong gravitational effects. They are not even objecting to most of the parts of your theory. They're objecting to the failings of your math. Singularities are nonsensical. Division by zero is undefined, it doesn't happen in the real world. Things that you call "infinite" are not infinite. The gravity is not infinite, and the surface area and volume are not zero. They're just approaching those values from our perspective.

But mostly they're objecting to your seemingly blind faith in the leaps of logic that are needed to choose dark matter and dark energy as the only solution for pulling the pieces of your theory together, when the observations are open to interpretation and the math is known (a) to produce errors like division by zero and (b) to allow any solution at all if you add enough dimensions. That's not explanation, it's approximation.
##### Parsec
4 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
If the jet is indeed pointing almost directly at earth, that means that the jet and thus the holes rotational axis is pointing into the galactic plane rather than perpendicular to it. I always imagined that the black hole would rotate so that the axis of the hole was perpendicular to the rotation plane because that is the way the solar system is organized (not that it has a jet, but that the solar equator corresponds roughly to the equatorial plane containing planetary orbits).

But heck, you learn something every day if your lucky!
##### Jogger
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great

Except, as noted in article above, that few if any observations actually match predictions. .

Which is a lie. The orbits of the stars tell us that there is a massive object there. This predicts that we should see gravitational redshift when S2 made its closest approach to the BH. We did. The occasional flares are perfectly in line with accretion.
On the other hand, you have nothing.
##### cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
Note how the "unscattered" observation appears to be nothing like the unscattered simulation. But who cares about predictions and science when discussing astrophysics.
##### jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2019
Note how the "unscattered" observation appears to be nothing like the unscattered simulation. But who cares about predictions and science when discussing astrophysics.

Notice how a scientifically illiterate believer in mythology-based woo, feels the need to comment on things that he doesn't understand?
##### Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
".......coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the radio jet is pointing almost at us."

,,,,,,and all they detected was a low emission spectra of radio waves which out of almost all possibility of statistical probability is aimed right at planet Earth.

Probability states it has to be pointed SOMEWHERE...
Here is as good as any place else...
##### wduckss
3 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
@humy
Do you understand the order of magnitude of ~ 0,001 -400 AU and 3.000 -16.000 ly?
Sirius is away 8.60 ± 0.04 ly!
Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 km and technology can not see what's under the atmosphere. The satellites can not be seen through the Titan moon atmosphere, you are explaining fairy tales about watching through 3,000 -16,000 ly.
You must also understand, that the article was accepted by the judges and has a DOI tag (doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13).
##### Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2019
If the diameters of a galactical central object are estimated to be a few tens of thousands of light-years, are measured there
...

They are not. Since WE are only 26k lightyears from the center, your estimate would have US as part of the Central object.
##### JaxPavan
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
The one place we can be certain where all intelligence in the galaxy will want to get close enough to study eventually is Sagittarius A*.

Thus it follows that it is also the meeting ground for all intelligence in the galaxy.
##### JaxPavan
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
The biggest power source for potential beacons in the galaxy. . . maybe SETI should give it the once over, just in case?
##### Jogger
3.1 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?

Probably not. Stars move. Millions of years ago, the axis of this black hole was likely not pointed at us.
##### JaxPavan
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Unlike the hundreds of billions of stars and black holes in the rest of the galaxy, this jet is coming from the one, single supermassive black hole at the center. So, one in 300 million is as unlikely as winning the lottery.
##### TuringTest
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2019
Does the axis of the rotation of the Sag A* help us better understand the orbits of the stars around it? Would the orbits of these stars or the accretion disk be different than if the axis was perpendicular to the galactic plane? Lastly, if the jet is pointing in our direction will that limit our ability to observe and study the BH?
##### JaxPavan
2.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
My understanding is stars rotate roughly perpendicular to their ecliptic plane. What's more, anything orbiting close enough to the star either rotates perpendicular to the ecliptic as well, or else eventually stops rotating relative to the central body (due to tidal forces).
##### cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
Probability states it has to be pointed SOMEWHERE...
Here is as good as any place else...

Geocentrism has a long history in "science", such as epicycles.
##### JaxPavan
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
correction: my math was wrong, the odds are actually one in 300 million squared, assuming it is symmetric. Forgot about the whole sphere thing.

or 1 in 9 X 10^16

90,000,000,000,000,000

How's that for geocentrism?

lol.

##### JaxPavan
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
but wait it gets worse, that was one in a three hundred millionth of A DEGREE.

so the 90 quadrillion has to be multiplied by 360 squared.

leaving one in 11,664,000,000,000,000,000,000

one in 11.6 septillion?

lol

With those odds it's more likely an alien is skipping rocks off the thing to send jet beacons to blue planets.
##### JaxPavan
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
or is that 11.6 sextillion; so many zeros?
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Our million mass BH

At this galactic centre of mass
this galactic galaxies rotational axis
where this BH rotates with its stars
as
its axis
are pointing perpendicular to the plane of this galaxy
this BHs axis is in line with this galaxies axis of rotation
is emanating from its spin-axis
as nice as it is to think this radiation is in line of sight
it's not to be
this BH is to big
it contains millions of stars
it is rotating with this Milkyway
where its arms containing our earth
are as spokes extending from this BHs equator
We are not in line of sight of this blackholes spin-axis
##### Da Schneib
2.9 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
Does the axis of the rotation of the Sag A* help us better understand the orbits of the stars around it? Would the orbits of these stars or the accretion disk be different than if the axis was perpendicular to the galactic plane?
Probably not. It's unlikely that they were formed together, and even more unlikely that any gravitomagnetic effects would extend so far.

Lastly, if the jet is pointing in our direction will that limit our ability to observe and study the BH?
It shouldn't. It hasn't stopped us seeing the stars orbiting it. Keep in mind also that this was all done with 86GHz, whereas the EHT observes at 230GHz, which is kind of like the difference between infrared and ultraviolet, which are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum.
##### Da Schneib
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?
There wasn't likely even an Earth when this black hole got started. They don't get this big that quickly in a sparse environment like the Milky Way Galactic Center.

Probably not. Stars move. Millions of years ago, the axis of this black hole was likely not pointed at us.
You shouldn't think of the axis as static. It's bound to precess, as all spinning objects do.
##### Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
The fact it is not symmetric tends to militate toward the conclusion that we're not seeing an accretion disk face-on, which would further militate toward the conclusion that the jet, if any, is not pointed directly at us.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Precession in blackhole spin-axis
Da Schneib> You shouldn't think of the axis as static. It's bound to precess, as all spinning objects do

As this million mass blackhole spins
as it precesses
its wobble increases its observable radiation
so
Da Schneib
this
blackhole
as it wobbles
as Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered, these pulsar stars precess
of this blackholes rotational precessional axis of spin
is identical
to Jocelyn Bell Burnell's Pulsar star
Da Schneib, this highly intuitive observation
you are saying Sagittarius A*
Is a Pulsar Star
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2019
The fact it is not symmetric tends to militate toward the conclusion that we're not seeing an accretion disk face-on, which would further militate toward the conclusion that the jet, if any, is not pointed directly at us.

It's never dawned upon you that first of all you need to get a picture before ANY of your fantasy conclusions can be proven in the affimative?

Schneibo, ever notice that EVERY explanation you posit for almost any Pop-Cosmology fantasy is an explanation for why it can't be seen?
##### Da Schneib
3 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2019
I have no idea what you expect to be "seen," @Benni. So far you're rejecting everything without any scientific basis, no links, no quotes, nothing but horseshit. All you seem to do is troll.

Jealous much? Just askin' the dude who can't figure out half-life and uses "gay" as an insult. Wanna see the link and quote again?
##### jimmybobber
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 22, 2019
@Benni

If I recall correctly you have a fantasy that a free neutron will decay in exactly 14 minutes and 42 seconds because it's an immutable law of physics. Am I wrong?
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2019
I have no idea what you expect to be "seen," @Benni.
........how about a pic of the most MASSIVE object in the ENTIRE galaxy? You know, a 4 million solar mass object?

So far you're rejecting everything without any scientific basis, no links, no quotes, nothing but horseshit.

Schneibo, the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology are not a "scientific basis" for ANYTHING. So where's the pic?
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
Da Schneib

I do not need a picci of this blackhole-pulsar star
this is not the question I asked
from its spin axis
as you went further
demonstrating the mechanics of a pulsar star
where we are actually observing radiation from a precessing spin-axis
Which is Jocelyn Bell Burnell's Pulsar Star
##### Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
@Benni tries the standard troll tactic of reversing the ground, well known to all Trump giant orange anus worshippers.

No, @Benni, you make the assertion you support it with scholarly links and quotes or you're lying again. Simple as that. You say it you support it.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
We did not see that coming

Da Schneib
with the help of JD
nailing the final nails in this blackholes coffin
as JD removes all blackholes credibility of its event horizons invisibility
now Da Schneib, defines this blackhole as a pulsar star
who needs enemies
when this blackhole has friends like DS and JD
Sagittarius A* was a self respecting blackhole
before DS and JD emerged from under their bridge
now
Sagittarius A* is a mere shadow of its former self
Contemplating fin rot under its bridge!

p.s. no one should ever have mentioned those furry animals to granville's delicate ears
##### Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
You got anything you'd like to ask me to provide links and quotes for, @Benni? Or are you sure I'd be able to and trying to hide from it?
##### V4Vendicar
2 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019

Rewrite or delete.
##### V4Vendicar
2 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
"its emission region is so small that the source may actually point directly at Earth."

The person who wrote this sentence is scientifically illiterate.

##### valeriy_polulyakh
1.8 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
"Top left: simulation of Sgr A* at 86 GHz. Top right: simulation with added effects of scattering. Bottom right: scattered image from the observations, how Sgr A* appears in the sky. Bottom left: the unscattered image, after removing the effects of scattering in our line of sight, revealing how Sgr A* actually looks."

LOL Still no proof positive that there is a Black Hole there in the middle. SIMULATIONS SIMULATIONS and MORE SIMULATIONS!!!
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?
says RNP

YOU ARE CORRECT!! There is NO images of the Black Hole that is supposedly in the centre of our galaxy. SIMULATIONS of a Black Hole are UNACCEPTABLE to us purists. Good of you to point that out. Artists, Simulators and modelers have no place in Astrophysics.
##### Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?
says RNP

YOU ARE CORRECT!! There is NO images of the Black Hole that is supposedly in the centre of our galaxy. SIMULATIONS of a Black Hole are UNACCEPTABLE to us purists. Good of you to point that out. Artists, Simulators and modelers have no place in Astrophysics.

> Egg:

Bingo: "no images"...........even RNP admits it by witness of his own words !!!!!!!

I wonder if that embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo might hack RNP's Comment & change it? Keep an eye out for that.
##### Steelwolf
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2019
I wonder if instead of the radio jet-pole we are looking down if they have not detected the blue-shift bright spot of synchrotron radiation from the edge of the accretion disc coming Towards us. Or even blue shift of the x-rays from the matter infalling, boosting the light to higher value due to the fact that the matter creating the light is moving a good chunk of lightspeed towards us itself as it infalls.

That should give a similar effect as what they state they are seeing and would be a lot safer for us, in the long run, than looking down a radio jet's throat.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2019
Pitiful -
"Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN, said Michael Johnson.

In a Court of Law, such "evidence" would be deemed as inadmissible due to it being so indeterminable.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2019
The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

This is micro-wave range at 230 GHz, still talking radio wavelengths & nothing in VISIBLE wavelength even with the EHT !!!!!!
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
@Benni
They will want to build and send off bigger and more powerful telescopes (enormously expensive) to get closer to the "target" - perhaps to the edge of the Solar System - and then rehire the Simulator to again simulate more images so that all we will be able to see are simulations - rather than the "real Black Hole".
I ask you - Will doing the same thing over and over and over again - while expecting a different outcome make sense to you? Not to me it doesn't.
##### JaxPavan
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Just wait two hours and look again; if it isn't gone it's following us.

The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?

(assuming the sun goes round once every 225 million years)

and the odds of this happening even once are one in 11,664,000,000,000,000,000,000

[(300,000,000)(360)]^2

And, that assumes all galactic core supermassive black holes randomly spin around without regard for their galactic plane. The odds get even slimmer if they tend to have axis of rotation perpendicular to their galactic planes.

In short, if that figure (three hundred millionths of a degree) is accurate to describe the width of this jet, then this is almost certainly some type of beacon.

Just wait 2 hours and look again, if it isn't gone it's following us.

##### JaxPavan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.

...providing that they don't get sucked into the alleged Black Hole...which would cause one to question their intelligence and technology. Of course, with their powerful telescopes they could observe the alleged Black Hole from a great enough distance that their ship would be movable to a safer location.
If, however, their home planet is within the "danger zone" of the alleged Black Hole that is threatening and their tech is still too much like ours - they may be sending out "distress" signals to anyone in the vicinity to come to their rescue.
##### JaxPavan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
Put another way, this jet is only about 120 times as wide as the earth. Somehow, it's been tracking us for 26 years? All while the sun is moving further than that round the center every two hours?
##### JaxPavan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
If that 300 millionth of a degree figure is accurate, the most likely conclusion is that aliens are skipping rocks (or something) off the thing to make beacon jets of radio waves pointed at blue planets. Hitting the earth, a planet 25,700 light years away with a beacon only 120 times as wide as the planet for 26 years is darn good aim.
##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

This is micro-wave range at 230 GHz, still talking radio wavelengths & nothing in VISIBLE wavelength even with the EHT !!!!!!
Tolja.
##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
Still waiting for links and quotes.
##### wduckss
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
You are trying to picking up points on the way: deny official evidence. These are quotes from Wikipedie. Do you have some of your evidence? Correct it in Wikipedia etc.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
You are trying to picking up points on the way: deny official evidence. These are quotes from Wikipedie. Do you have some of your evidence? Correct it in Wikipedia etc.

Just telling you what my input has been... We are 26kly from galactic center.. The "galactic central object" is not "a few 10s of thousands of years..." in diameter....
That's all.
##### JaxPavan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
There are none so blind as those who will not see. . . what three hundred millionths of a degree really means.
##### Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
Pitiful -
"Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN, said Michael Johnson.

In a Court of Law, such "evidence" would be deemed as inadmissible due to it being so indeterminable.

##### Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.

EVERYTHING can be found in the middle...
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
Punxsutawney Phil's blackhole sees his shadow
SEU> A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN

North America will have six more weeks of winter
says Punxsutawney Phil
the most famous groundhog in the United States.
Phil's keepers
reported his weather prediction Friday morning on the U.S. observance of Groundhog Day
Every year, on February 2, a groundhog leaves his home
a hole in the ground in the small community
of
Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania
On a sunny morning
his body will create a shadow on nearby objects
that if the animal sees his shadow
there will be six more weeks of winter weather
but if skies are cloudy
and
no dark shape appears
Americans can expect spring to arrive early

This Punxsutawney Phil's Blackhole came out its Hole and saw its Shadow
Were in for six weeks of winter
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
This blackhole pulsar star Sagittarius A*

A rotating pulsar star
pulsars rotate in synch with their pulse
pulsar stars rotate faster than galactic rotation
even as this blackhole forms in this galactic centre
as telescopic evidence proves
from its spin-axis
Stars in this galactic centre rotate faster than this galaxy
as this Sagittarius A* rotates faster than our Milkyway
we have a pulsar in rotation emanating radiation in gyroscopic precessional precession
as we count Sagittarius A* rate of spin
it matters not how this matter falls into Sagittarius A* spin-axis
it matters not how this matter emanates Sagittarius A* spin-axis
all that matter is this matter is from Sagittarius A* spin-axis
because
we will be in line of sight of Sagittarius A* at some time in precession
Concerning Sagittarius A*lack of accretion disc
as in Jocelyn Bell Burnell's pulsar star
Pulsar stars require no accretion disc, this blackhole is a pulsar star
##### wduckss
2 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
"If the diameters of a galactical central … or 40 thousand ly on the equator and 30 thousands ly (according to some other sources)"
"( Estimates for the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy range from 100,000 light years up to 120,000 light years.)"

"As to the size of the galactic bulge that makes up the core of the galaxy, it's diameter is estimated at around 30,000 light years in the north-south direction. The diameter in the equatorial plane is estimated to be 40,000 light years."
http://www.astrod...axy.html
Evidence, evid… Quotes..
##### TuringTest
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2019
Thanks for the response Da Schneib, it's appreciated.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?

A MASER beam..........by the time that beam reaches planet Earth what would the spread of that beam be by the time it reaches us if it starts it's journey one 300 millionth of a degree wide at the instant it leaves the source? Anybody?
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.
.....with you being the perfect example when you concoct an excess beta decay rate lasting many years into the lifetime decay rate of ALL free unbound neutrons known by nuclear physicists to be 14.7 minutes.

##### humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2019
@humy
Do you understand the order of magnitude of ~ 0,001 -400 AU and 3.000 -16.000 ly?
Sirius is away 8.60 ± 0.04 ly!
wduckss

Yes, I understand all that. So what?

Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 km and technology can not see what's under the atmosphere. The satellites can not be seen through the Titan moon atmosphere, you are explaining fairy tales about watching through 3,000 -16,000 ly.

So your 'logic' here is that if our technology cannot see through the massively thick atmosphere of a planet or moon then 'therefore' none of our technology via radio and infrared astronomy can see through the dust clouds of space because of those dust clouds being MUCH further away and being many light-years across? Flawed reasoning. How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?

##### humy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2019
(continued)

-and this is confirmed by the link I show below that says:

"...What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes. ..."

Do you deny that above?
The above is just common science knowledge.
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds. Thus this science is NOT fairy tales!

http://blogs.disc...HZ82nw2w
##### theredpill
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2019
"I ask you - Will doing the same thing over and over and over again - while expecting a different outcome make sense to you? Not to me it doesn't."

Einsteins theory of insanity applies to almost every poster here. Does arguing with belief driven people on a science agglomeration site about the same crank theories make sense? Left upper panel, artificial simulation, lower right panel...truth. How messed up does your thinking have to be to obtain all information via photon frequency/theory of production yet ignore what the pictures show in favour of artificial simulation?

Let's find out.....

##### MrBojangles
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
how about a pic of the most MASSIVE object in the ENTIRE galaxy? You know, a 4 million solar mass object?

Your accentuation of the word massive shows your ignorance of the concept of density.
No surprise there given your inability to comprehend half life.

Joined by the "pictures or it's not real" crowd whose minds stopped developing at the age of 12. These are the type of folks who don't believe we landed on the moon and say dumb crap like "show us a picture of the flag if we really landed there and planted it!"
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.
.....with you being the perfect example when you concoct an excess beta decay rate lasting many years into the lifetime decay rate of ALL free unbound neutrons known by nuclear physicists to be 14.7 minutes.

Sod off you cretin. You have been shown the papers where detections are made long after 14.7 minutes, you brainless clown.
##### wduckss
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2019
@humy
If I understand your science well. Technology that can not be measured there in the Sun system, does the god right behind the leg excellently work?
Satellites in orbits around the planet and telescopes from the earth give results, only where it suits someone to tell the story.
You can do better than stupidity. The radio wave technology must work at small distances equally and better of larger distances.
##### humy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2019

Satellites in orbits around the planet and telescopes from the earth give results, only where it suits someone to tell the story.
wduckss

What? Are you actually saying here that what we observe through our telescopes is caused in some way only by what we want to see i.e. is purely subjective? If so, I say that's false. For example, if our telescopes tell us (indirectly via use and observations and then scientific deductions) the story of the universe being very old, I for one would think it's very old.
##### Benni
2 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
"What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes."
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds.
Then you agree with :

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

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2019
^^^^^Idiot. It is seen infrequently in infrared, as you have been told countless times, you braindead moron. It is an inactive BH, so there is not a permanent IR feature.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
As the day draws closer

As the nights get shorter
the warmth of the sun brings these spring flowers closer to flowering
time waits for no man
as March march's forward
that most feared day is arriving
there is no going back
as
Steven hawking
due to unnecessary delays and barracking
this day
of
The Picci
Steven hawking waited all his life to see
will sorely miss
but
he will be consoled and dismayed by this Picci
because
when this Picci arrives
arrives in the cold light of day
the eyes of the world will be on this Picci
it will be more famous than that enigmatic smile
this Picci
is going to be the most almighty flop
the world has experienced in photography of simulation
as
everyone
will
say
but where is this photograph of this blackhole
This is not a blackhole
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
^^^^^^^Clueless moron.
##### granville583762
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
In memory of Stephen William Hawking

Stephen William Hawking (1942 - 2018) was the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge
Where Stephen is concerned, we have to get our spelling under control
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
Judgement Day
jonesdave> ^^^^^^^Clueless moron.

You have to reserve your judgement on judgement day, JD
##### wduckss
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2019
@humy
The measurements are fine. The problem is the presentation of the measurements made. "Scientists" (for money) talk idiotaria.
We do not need to be idiots and smoke their pranks and ridicule readers. If astronomers can not know (technology does not measure) what's inside Jupiter, then nobody can talk about fictional black holes.
Each frog prophesies from coffee grounds in the cup.
Please do not take nothing, from my comments, personally. In the discussion I always turn to the authors of the article. I comment exclusively articles that do not have connections with physics and cleverness.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?

>humy.....do you see & believe:

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

7th photo frame from the top of the page:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
Pulsar emissions in dust clouds

A foggy cloud of hot gas
has prevented astronomers
from
making sharp images
of
the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*
casting doubt on its true nature

Take an average pulsar surrounded by dust
as Sagittarius A* is surrounded by dust
what is the outcome
how does its emissions compare
to the emissions
Emanating from Sagittarius A*
##### humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2019
Benni

"We think that the matter surrounding the black hole in the Galactic Center is ... virtually transparent to its own radiation so it does not heat up efficiently. "

and it also goes on to say:

"...Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A* for short, turns out to be a unique radio source and its characteristics clearly suggest it is the supermassive black hole.
...
We have measured enough velocities of stars to measure the gravitational field accurately. Even if it doesn't make much energy, and is virtually invisible, it turns out there is a very massive (more than 3 million sun masses) black hole right in the center.
..."
Thus your OWN link clearly implies the science clearly says there IS a black hole there! Just as I said all along.

Also see:

https://en.wikipe...arius_A*

"Sagittarius A* is the location of a supermassive black hole "

To deny all this is to deny the known scientific facts.

##### humy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2019
@humy
The measurements are fine. The problem is the presentation of the measurements made.
wduckss

I take that to mean if what the measurements show don't agree with your beliefs then the problem is that those measurements are presented.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019

>humy...........I was specifically addressing the 7th photo frame from the top of the page within the context of:

How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?

and:

What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes."
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds.

...........that 7th photo frame did ALL the things for filtering dust & the results of the PICTURE showed no evidence of a BH at SgrA* and so states in the caption "it must be invisible" The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2019
@Benni

I'm starting to believe you have no reading compression skills at all and rely on pictures alone to learn.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
"Sagittarius A* is the location of a supermassive black hole "

To deny all this is to deny the known scientific facts.

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

Below from photo frame 10 from the top of the page:

"This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around Sgr A* (the yellow star symbol). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so these measurements demonstrate that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow star. (from Andrea Ghez et al., http://www.astro....h.html)"

Because "there is no source to be seen under the yellow star" guess what they had to do to indicate the point of the center of the galaxy, yeah, they put a fake 5 point star in the empty space there so readers would know where SgrA* being the center of the galaxy is located.

##### Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2019
IR is EM wavelength - light.
How could we see IR of a BH?
##### Phyllis Harmonic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2019
The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?

First of all, it is not a "stellar object"- it's what becomes of one or more stellar objects above a certain size after they gravitationally collapse.

Secondly, you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light, regardless of its size. A black hole is such an object. It's not able to reflect light as it absorbs any light that impinges on it. And it's not radiating light of any wavelength because no light can escape from it. The only light that's visible in the immediate region of a black hole is that that's generated from in-falling, hot matter.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?

First of all, it is not a "stellar object"- it's what becomes of one or more stellar objects above a certain size after they gravitationally collapse.
Standard Pop-Cosmology redefinition, just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.

Secondly, you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light
.....that's for sure, empty space shown in the pictures are quite evident this is the case.
##### Phyllis Harmonic
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.

No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

##### Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2019
The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?

A MASER beam..........by the time that beam reaches planet Earth what would the spread of that beam be by the time it reaches us if it starts it's journey one 300 millionth of a degree wide at the instant it leaves the source? Anybody?

Scroll back and se what Jax Pavan has told you...
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.

No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

.....I take it you're an avid reader of science fiction novels.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.
says JaxPavan (posted ~19 hours ago)

It seemed to me, from the very first week that I/we began posting comments in physorg phorums, that very few, if any of the other commenters, particularly certain ones, had any interest in actually learning that other intelligent life forms exist on exoplanets ANYWHERE in the Universe. There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website - that any evidence of intelligent life forms on other planets and in either the Milky Way or other galaxies is a threat against them personally - as humans. Anthropocentrists to the core, they are - and quite possibly dangerous to any visitors from another world who identify themselves as such.
There would be such intolerant behaviours and madness amongst them.

##### cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2019
'The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy'
https://www.holos...tronomy/

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.

No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

says Phil Harmonica

If you are suffering, then what is keeping you here? Why do you keep coming back to physorg phorums if it pains you so? Are you a masochist? Do you enjoy reading your own tripe in your obvious loneliness for companionship - even if only typing your BS on a keyboard?
Somehow you seem like jonesdave's doppelgänger. Are you he?
##### jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

Are you spokesperson for intelligent life forms from exoplanets?

I have no doubt that life exists beyond earth but we have no proof yet.

Are you from an exoplanet?

Are you the proof?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
IR is EM wavelength - light.
How could we see IR of a BH?
says Whyde

Infrared lamps emit light and heat. In the 20th Century there were those individuals who laid under an IR lamp to warm their aching muscles. Too long under the lamp and skin could become burnt. But IR does emit a reddish glow.

infrared | ˌinfrəˈred |
(of electromagnetic radiation) having a wavelength just greater than that of the red end of the visible light spectrum but less than that of microwaves. Infrared radiation has a wavelength from about 800 nm to 1 mm, and is emitted particularly by heated objects.
• (of equipment or techniques) using or concerned with this radiation: infrared cameras.
noun
the infrared region of the spectrum; infrared radiation.

IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists.
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

you said:

"IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists"

Are you serious?

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

Are you spokesperson for intelligent life forms from exoplanets?

I have no doubt that life exists beyond earth but we have no proof yet.

Are you from an exoplanet?

Are you the proof?
says jimmy booboo

No. I am not a spokesperson for them. They have their own "League of Planets" I believe it's called. I am stationed on planet Earth and stuck here for a long while, along with my compatriots - to observe, learn and record. Humans have a long track record of violence, bigotry, intolerance, ignorance, madness, aggressiveness (which is apparent in this website), suspiciousness of things they don't comprehend or accept, and other equally traits that render them too dangerous to be dealt with.
No proof. Just in the Vela system alone, there are, I believe, 100 TRILLION galaxies. And yet, it is believed by most that alien life forms cannot possibly exist.
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are not human and you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record humans.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

you said:

"IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists"

Are you serious?

Why not? Gravity is a weak force. They are telling you that absolutely NOTHING can escape the weak force of a Black Hole. LOL
Just because Matter is seen to be infalling into the Black Hole doesn't necessarily mean that nothing can come out of it. You've been told that there are jets of Matter emitting out of the poles, and yet they can't make an ACTUAL IMAGE/PICTURE OF THOSE JETS/EJECTA?
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website

>Egg:.......... I think it's more about that it carries the tone of something concerning religion. How many thousands of years has mankind been entranced about things in the sky, and watching things fall out of it, worshipped the Sun & all that stuff? Then we found out in only the last few hundred years all those heavenly bodies are just other bodies of mass little different than the ground we walk on, so nix worshipping that stuff anymore.

People for the most part are entranced only by that which they view as being bigger than themselves, that is unless you're Benni, nothing BIG impresses me because I know there's a way anything can be taken apart & revealed for what it is, not so with religion.

I have no idea why the Universe is as big as it is, or if it even needs to be as big as it is in order to sustain stability for our habitation & whatever else may be out there.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are not human and you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record humans.

##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are human but you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record other humans.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website

says I

>Egg:.......... I think it's more about that it carries the tone of something concerning religion. How many thousands of years has mankind been entranced about things in the sky, and watching things fall out of it, worshipped the Sun & all that stuff? Then we found out in only the last few hundred years all those heavenly bodies are just other bodies of mass little different than the ground we walk on, so nix worshipping that stuff anymore.
says Benni

Manmade religions were created by men out of fear of the unknown. They developed doctrines and divinations such as gods/goddesses to keep their populace in line and to maintain command and control. It worked well for a very long time; but what they did not know/understand was that there is/was only ONE Creator - not more than one. All their idols have now been replaced by governmental bodies, movie stars, and media.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
says Benni
People for the most part are entranced only by that which they view as being bigger than themselves, that is unless you're Benni, nothing BIG impresses me because I know there's a way anything can be taken apart & revealed for what it is, not so with religion.

They are entranced by that which they think will save them from starvation, homelessness, boredom, bad health, and ultimately - death. Atheists are not keen on dying since they don't believe in an Afterlife unless they see evidence of it. LOL But if they see evidence of it, that would mean that they're already dead. Or at least, their bodies are dead or dying. So they have no use for religions or the religious such as Christians and Jews. Islamic leaders are liars, telling of 72 virgins if a man dies in battle. Religions are still fear of the unknown, but not so much fear anymore as a willingness to "toe the line" for the sake of one's own conscience and self-satisfaction.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2019
says Benni
I have no idea why the Universe is as big as it is, or if it even needs to be as big as it is in order to sustain stability for our habitation & whatever else may be out there.

The Universe was necessarily the size that it is as that was the Decision that was made. It makes pretty good sense to me. It is Space itself that is BIG - the Matter/Energy within it is more like an afterthought. No, not really an afterthought. There had to be stuff to fill the Space - otherwise what would be the sense in making all of that Space. There's a good reason for everything, and ours is not to question why or what the reason is. It is there for all to enjoy. When you look up at the Stars at night in all their glory - don't you feel humble and a sense of happiness comes over you that you're alive to see these wonderful things/sights? I still do. You may question WHY but the answer is when you look in the mirror and when you see puppy or kitten playing or children laughing
##### wduckss
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2019
@humy
"HD 93250…………….83,3 M Sun………15,9R Sun……46.000°K………speed130km/s
BI 253 ……………….. 84…………………..10,7…………50.100…………….200
HD 5980 B…………...66 ………………… 22……………45.000…………<400
HD 5980 A……………61………………….24……………45.000……………250
HD 5980 C……………34………………….24……………34.000…………….120

RSGC1-F04…………..19………………….. 1553….………. 2.858
R Leporis……………… 2,5-5………………400±90………2.290
CW Leonis……………..0,7-0,9…………… 390-500…….2.200 (1.915-2.105)
La Superba…………….3…………………….307-390…… 2.750-3.200"

...
##### wduckss
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2019
@humy
"Fast-rotating galaxies
RX J1131-1231..........quasar.................half the speed of light
Spindle galaxy.......elliptical galaxy.......significant amount of rotation around axis"
NGC 6109………..Lenticular Galaxy……..40 ± 8 rad m−2

Contrary to: Slow Rotation
Andromeda………….spiral galaxy…………..225 km/s
UGC 12591…………..spiral galaxy…………..500 km/s,
Milky Way……………spiral galaxy……………210 ± 10 (220 km/s Sun)
galaxies....................type galaxies................Speed of galaxies" etc
##### wduckss
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2019
Aldebaran…………...1,5…….44,2……..3.910……634 day
Hamal………………..1,5……14,9………4.480…….3,44 km/s
Iota Draconis………..1,82….11,99……..4.545……..1,5
Pollux…………………2,04….8.8………..4.666……2,8
Beta Andromedae......3-4……100………3.842…….7,2
Betelgeuse…………..11,6….887 ±203…3.590…….5
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
A blackhole a self proving theory

The most massive object in the galaxy so big it's invisible, after all that infrared filtering
you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light A black hole is such an object
light visible in the region of a black hole is generated from in-falling hot matter
light visible in the immediate region is filtered out as extraneous obscuring light
impacts on, A blackhole a self proving theory!
A blackhole a self proving theory - no light is emitted or reflected

This theory, A blackhole a self proving theory is a blackhole obscured by light emitted in-falling matter
where this light is filtered out as extraneous obscuring light
which in theory will reveal this blackhole, A blackhole a self proving theory-no light is emitted or reflected

As we ask for The Picci
we ask for light filtered out as extraneous obscuring light to this blackhole
revealing
A blackhole a self proving theory
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
A Circular Argument - A Blackhole a Self Proving Theory

As we at phys.org, specialise in circular arguments
this blackhole has got to be the circular arguments of circular arguments
in the history of circular arguments
as
the boffins work night and day
to
produce The Picci
they can take heart
that whatever happens
to this photographic simulation of reality
their reputation is safe
because
this blackhole
is
A Circular Argument
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
So they have no use for religions or the religious such as Christians and Jews. Islamic leaders are liars, telling of 72 virgins if a man dies in battle. Religions are still fear of the unknown, but not so much fear anymore as a willingness to "toe the line" for the sake of one's own conscience and self-satisfaction.

>Egg........I suppose all these things may be true, but I kind of don't care what motivates someone to hold to some tenet of religious lifestyle.

I personally do not look up into the sky through a telescope & feel humbled by what I see, I do feel awed by the existence of what I see.

I have spent the entirety of my life fully comprehending the Immutable Laws of Physics by which all that MASS out there can exist, I'm only saying I don't know what the point of it is all about, so I leave it there & read nothing else into it, no bigo bango & all that other religious roots crap for me.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
'The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy'
https://www.holos...tronomy/

Lol. A link to a cretin who believes in Velikovky's tripe!
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2019
Atheists are not keen on dying since they don't believe in an Afterlife unless they see evidence of it.
.....so what is the "evidence of it"? Somebody wrote a book?

I hear lots of stories about near-death experiences, etc, but what else is there that reveals what is beyond? Words from books? Anybody can write a book, that's what goes on here in this chatroom. No beings from beyond have ever showed up & sat down beside me to explain ANYTHING.

My greatest criticism against Atheists is the intellectual superiority binge most of them are prone to. I know what my IQ is but it never leaves me with feelings of superiority, it does leave me with a sense of awe that I have a deep capacity for learning skills that few walking the face of the planet share with me, but I don't beat people over the head with it until they start in on me first & go on name calling binges like what goes on in this chatroom.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
The Black Canvas in the Tate

As the boffins reveal their master piece
as it hangs on the Tate wall
as the artisans flock in their 1000s
as the streets are packed
London is grid locked
at the momentum of revealing
everyone is trembling with excitement
are they going to be sucked to infinity
when the curtain is drawn
as
when this masterpiece is revealed
The Black Canvas
the excitement
will turn into disbelief
will turn into shock
on
realising the reality
this is a blackhole
it is black
as
every fine artist knows
black is not a colour
black reflects no light
so
as this disgruntled crowd quietly spills out on the street
the realisation will dawn
they have just had that rare privilege
of
being the first to view Blackholes self portrait
The Black Canvas
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
it does leave me with a sense of awe that I have a deep capacity for learning skills that few walking the face of the planet share with me,....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

This from the cretin that said;

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.

Lolworthy stuff, indeed.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
In nature there is no such word as none

14.7minutes
as this is finality
given 1000 neutrons
how many neutrons
are left
after
1.47minutes
2.94minutes
to
14.7minutes
so
at this 14.7 minute
there are ten data sets
with final 1/10
at 14.7minutes revealing the total left
because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left
all
that has been said
is either none, or it follows the exponential curve
because
in nature there is no such word as none
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left

Wrong, thicko. Read the papers, and look at the figures. How difficult can it be?

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left

Wrong, thicko. Read the papers, and look at the figures. How difficult can it be?

Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left

the question
because
no
has
said
this means, JD
you type it out by hand so we can read it
so
that JD, there is no confusion and interpretation
as yourself JD type it out as exactly how many neutron are left at 14.7minutes
even if you have to work out from the experiment with your calculator
how many are left at 14.7minutes
it has to be in your own hand
because
you have to say of the original sample how many left at 14.7minutes

JD, it a long time since I have had encourage commentators to comment
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left

Complete crap. The papers have figures detailing the counts. Are you blind? And there is no deadline, you idiot.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left

Complete crap. The papers have figures detailing the counts. Are you blind? And there is no deadline, you idiot.

JD, swearing is not commentating
as
You have still not said, how many are left at 14.7minutes, in your own handwriting
It has to be in your own handwriting
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
JD, swearing is not commentating
as
You have still not said, how many are left at 14.7minutes, in your own handwriting

Read the papers and look at the figures you moron.

##### MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
I know what my IQ is but it never leaves me with feelings of superiority

I don't think a double digit score has ever left anyone feeling superior.

##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
So, here we go again. Here is Fig. 2 from;

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

http://www.imageb...02117504

So, for the hard of thinking, they took measurements at 100, 400, 700, 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000 seconds. The counts are plotted on an exponential decay curve.
What is the total number of neutrons introduced to the trap? Looks like 40 000 to me. By which stage have half of them disappeared? Well, look on the y-axis for 20 000, which is one tick above '10^4'. Follow across to the curve, and read the number of seconds on the x-axis. Looks very much like ~ 600 s to me. What a surprise! Does anything dramatic happen at ~ 880s (14.7 mins)? Errr, no. Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s? Yes they are. How many? Looks to be ~ 700.
So, can we stop this idiotic nonsense about all neutrons decaying at, or by, 14.7 mins?
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist

So, for the hard of thinking
they took measurements
at
100, 400, 700, 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000 seconds
The counts are plotted on an exponential decay curve.
What is the total number of neutrons introduced to the trap
Looks like 40 000 to me
By which stage have half of them disappeared
Well
look on the y-axis for 20 000
which is one tick above '10^4
and
read the number of seconds on the x-axis
Looks very much like ~ 600 s to me
What a surprise!
Does anything dramatic happen at ~ 880s (14.7 mins)
Errr
No
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
How many
Looks to be ~ 700.
So
can we stop this idiotic nonsense about all neutrons decaying at
or by
14.7 mins
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist

WTF are you on about now? Even a 10 year old could understand those figures with the description I gave.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist

WTF are you on about now? Even a 10 year old could understand those figures with the description I gave.

these figures you have typed out are correct are they not
if you typed out figures from a graph that is correct
Effectively these facts are the person who constructed the graph, not yours

If you felt uneasy typing these facts out
you should have said so
before typing them out
it is because nobody wanted to be the first one to put their money where their mouth is
that this free neutron has resisted decay, for years in fact
if you are feeling uneasy over these facts, there is a problem some where
which is why there now easier to see where the problem is
Obviously there is a problem – what as yet I do not know
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2019
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
.....and yes they are still detecting neutrons, just not any of the neutrons that were part of the original aggregate that was input from the neutron generator. The nuclear physicists did not count that which was part of the original input of neutrons, which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50, to do otherwise would have skewed the data creating a count of more neutrons OUT than what was put IN the scintillation detector to be counted. But poor jonesy with only an Anthropology degree does not understand this & I understand that he doesn't comprehend what nuclear physics is about after all he's not the one who knows how to solve Differential Equations, I do.
##### jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

The whole point of the experiment was to calculate the mean lifetime.
Why on earth would they stop at 14.7 minutes to calculate the mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes?

They started with 40000 neutrons. At 14.7 minutes they did not count 40000 neutron decays.
Look at the graph jonesdave linked.

Fail.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2019
Benni, in looking for the source of JDs unease

This fact off counting in and counting out neutrons
that were not part of the original 40,000 neutrons
has not surfaced in any search
if neutrons in this UNC trap
are
from the moment
the
40,000 neutrons are inserted
are also being created
firstly
an accurate life time cannot be ascertained
and
the number of neutrons left at each decay measurement
cannot be relied upon
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded
##### jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
.....and yes they are still detecting neutrons, just not any of the neutrons that were part of the original aggregate that was input from the neutron generator. The nuclear physicists did not count that which was part of the original input of neutrons, which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50, to do otherwise would have skewed the data creating a count of more neutrons OUT than what was put IN the scintillation detector to be counted. But poor jonesy with only an Anthropology degree does not understand this & I understand that he doesn't comprehend what nuclear physics is about after all he's not the one who knows how to solve Differential Equations, I do.

Tosser. The timings of the collections are the black dots on the exponential curve, you blind idiot. They are also shown an on the line above the x-axis at the relevant timings. You are a cretin and a liar.
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
I'll say this again, you braindead twat; WTF are you on about? Are they, or are they not detecting an exponentially decaying neutron count long after 14.7 minutes? Yes, they are, therefore you, and the idiot Benni, are wrong, and not a single scientist on the planet agrees with you, you tosspot. Go away and get an education you hopeless pain in the arse.
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
The above post was obviously meant to be addressed to Granville.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded
.......no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator. They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated.

They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.

##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2019
Ultra cold neutrons reflection of coherent neutrons with atomic nuclei

Coherent scattering of slow neutrons results in an effective interaction for neutrons travelling through matter, results in the total reflection of slow neutrons incident on a surface at a glancing angle
UCN traps allow slowly moving neutrons storage time
It all depends on your view point of storage
Out of 40,000 neutrons, in 3000s is 700 neutrons
by one method of storage 98% of these neutrons have gone
but in this time it is possible to observe quantum gravity in neutrons
neutrons moving in a gravitational field
do not move smoothly
but jump from one height to another

This heighlights the point raised by UCN storage
the slowly moving neutrons are interacting
as
it
also highlights - UCN traps allow slowly moving neutrons storage time
if
as it appears
neutrons are interacting
creating neutrons
This would make it seem as though there is longer storage time
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
....which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50,

Please point out on the graph, or in the text of the paper, where they say they stopped the count at 14.7 minutes, you lying POS. Here is the text that you are too thick to understand, janitor-boy;

In the next step the multishutter was closed, the shutter opened to the monitor detector and in the main storage trap the UCN were held for the ***chosen storage time*** ranging for the large trap length of 75 cm ***from 100 to 3000 s***.

F***ing lying, incompetent tosspot.
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
.no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator.

There is no burst, you f***wit. The detections all fall on an exponential decay curve, you brainless clown. Look at the figure, you idiot. Christ, some people are thick! And this phoney claims to be a nuclear engineer! Lol. That is scary, if true.

##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.

F*** me, this clown is thick! Why does the decay at 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000s, all lie on the same curve, you tosspot?

##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2019
When conducting an experiment

Counting the life time of a neutron
whatever its known life time is
the experiment has to continue long past its life time
especially dealing with exponential life time
as each measurement to the next measurement is of interest
because
the experiment is dealing with neutrons that have not decayed
as
also of interest is how long individual neutrons can exist before they decay
as the last neutron to decay
technically was one of the first neutron in the group of 40,000 neutrons inserted
but if neutrons
are being created during the process of counting
an
experiment
is
devised to eliminate the possibility of neutrons being created during the 3000s
as
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better
##### jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said

"They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated."

Really???
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment????

##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said

"They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated."

Really???
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment????

Like i said; thick as pigsh!t!
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,

##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better

And, according to you two cretins, there should be no neutrons after ~880s. So the paper, and many others, shows, not surprisingly, that you haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about, you moron.

##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep.

Nope, f***wit. Read the paper, you clueless tosspot.
##### jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,

Jesus, what a lying, conceited, f***wit this specimen is! Want me to e-mail the author, sh!tforbrains? Post a screenshot of the reply here? Really? F*** off, you useless tosser. You know sh!t about science. You are a mentally disturbed clown, with the IQ of a brain damaged hamster. Take a hike, you preposterous fraud.
##### jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.

Being brainwashed is one thing, but being brainwashed by oneself, as in Benn's case, is truly sad!
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better

And, according to you two , there should be no neutrons after ~880s.
.....certainly no neutrons generated by the neutron generator.

So the paper, and many others, shows
.....about 15 minute cutoff time which would include counts from ALL sources that could have included a beta decay from the materials from which the measurement device was fabricated.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.
.........OK, you get in touch with those nuclear physicists and tell them you're the expert who can fix it.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin. It prevents the injected neutrons striking the walls of the vessel. Yet, somehow, we are getting neutron emission from the walls that is managing to travel through that fomblin! And producing a decay curve totally as expected for free neutron decay! Bloody amazing.
Or Benni is making sh!t up. Which is far more likely.

##### jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

The UCN trap was a glass box with it's inner surface coated with Fomblin Oil to reflect the neutrons.

##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.
.........OK, you get in touch with those nuclear physicists and tell them you're the expert who can fix it.

Stop lying, you f***wit. I have already asked - want me to email the author and see if he confirms your fairy story, you cretin? Where in the paper do they spell this out, you clown. Come on, janitor-boy, spell it out, you lying POS.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
....certainly no neutrons generated by the neutron generator.

Says who, sh!tforbrains? Why does this random scatter fall on the exact same decay curve as that seen prior to 1000s? Come on idiot - let's hear the science, you gormless tosser. Bloody clown.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2019
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded
.......no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator. They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated.

They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.

This means well before the 3000s
this UCN trap has been empty for some time
The question now is
how long has this neutron trap been completely empty
because
If we believe JDs graph, there's still 700 neutrons knocking around
##### jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
@Granville

##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
how long has this neutron trap been completely empty
because
If we believe JDs graph, there's still 700 neutrons knocking around

Are you blind, thick, or both? They did numerous runs, and did counts at varying times, including 3000s. As shown in the figure I posted. What is it that is failing to penetrate the thickness of your sub-human skull? Spell it out, you idiot.

##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2019
What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin

.....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless.

Done, not wasting anymore time with neophytes.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin

.....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless.

No it won't you clueless cretin. Stop talking crap, and stop commenting on subjects that are well beyond you, you posing moron.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
Done, not wasting anymore time with neophytes.

Wanker. Shown up big style, and runs away. What a f***ing tosspot! Shall we email the authors, shitforbrains? Nah, too chicken, aren't you? (rhetorical). Total poser. Uneducated loon.
##### jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2019
Right, for thick pricks like Benni and his doppelgänger, Granville;
look at the counts on that decay curve. Start at the top left of the curve. See how long it takes for the count to keep halving. Woooo, ~ 600s. Weird, isn't it? 40 000 to 20 000. 20 000 to 10 000, and so on. Try it, thickos.
##### cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2019
And the vulgar meathead thinks he "won". Name calling, vulgarity, logical fallacy and a dreadfully acute display of wilfull ignorance is how he "wins", in his feeble mind.
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni You said:

".....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless."

They are using a microstrip detector.

##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2019
These questions are not being answered correctly

Anomalous reading of 700 neutrons at 3000s
this UNC trap then gives anomalous readings of 700 neutrons in an empty UNC trap

If this UNC trap is gives consistent anomalous readings in an empty UNC trap
this 700 neutrons are above the existing readings
as the existing readings are 700 neutrons at 3000s
means by mathematical subtraction 700-700 = 0 at 3000s

The Relevant Question
in an empty UNC trap
how many neutrons recorded in 3000s
The total is _ _ _ _ _ _?
then this can be added to the total injected into the UNC trap
This 40,000 + _ _ _ _ _ _? = actual total of injected neutrons
so although these anomalous neutrons might be occurring over 3000s
it gives an idea of what is being dealt with

Neutron-sensitive scintillating glass fibre detectors
are types of scintillators that absorb neutrons
they can only be counted
at one of these periods
100 400 700 1000 1300 2000 3000 seconds
##### jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.

Major fail there guy man dude Benni.

https://www.ias.a...471-0475
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.

Major fail there guy man dude Benni.

https://www.ias.a...471-0475

It works both ways jimmybobber
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
@granville

No poem for me? I noticed whenever you are proven wrong you stop with the nonsense poetry.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2019
@granville

No poem for me? I noticed whenever you are proven wrong you stop with the nonsense poetry.

This is not a poem jimmybobber
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
@Granville you said

"This is not a poem jimmybobber"

I think that's the best poem you've ever written. I'm actually flattered.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2019
@Granville you said

"This is not a poem jimmybobber"

I think that's the best poem you've ever written. I'm actually flattered.

This poem gets better with every telling
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.

It works both ways jimmybobber

Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........
##### Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2019
What's an "attending physicist?"
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2019
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
So this mystery decay deepens
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

Good point, SEU
Just as I was going to dig out the half-life formula
mean-life is not half-life, Ln2.mean-life is half-life
but beta-decay
because
in radioactive-decay the mass of the sample is counted
as
in neutron beta-decay the number of neutrons are counted

So this decay mystery deepens!
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Beta-decaying Neutron

In beta-decay
in this neutron
in a UNC trap, the neutrino has to be detected
this neutrino is just one of the products of beta-decay
is one of the signs of beta-decay
this fleeting neutrino has to be detected
so
if this UNC trap cannot detect the emission products of beta-decay
it is incorrectly measuring beta-decay
because
next on the list is the emission of an electron
which in its own right is a product a product of beta-decay
as
this is now two products of this neutron
that have to be detected
to properly measure this beta-decay
then this proton that is released is another product of beta-decay
that has to be detected
in all so far three independent products of beta-decay
are there to be detected
in
this
Beta-decaying Neutron
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Escaping to infinity and beyond

the radio-active sample is emitting particles
as the sample mass diminishes with each emitted particle
as
all that is required is to count the emitted particles
then compare the loss of mass of the radio-active sample
but
with free neutrons
is not the same
they
are as the name suggests, free
because
the
instant this free neutron emits a neutrino
this neutron is dead in the water
there is no going back
so
even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay
as
this means
you cannot put neutrons in a UNC trap, release them, then simply count them
because
in this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
are neutrons undergoing beta-decay before they are released and counted
because
in this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
are the fleeting presence of 1000s of neutrinos
Escaping to infinity and beyond
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

As it extremely unlikely this UNC trap
Is capable of counting neutrinos
it is highly probable
with
a 100% certainty
that
this UNC trap cannot count the fleeting presence of neutrinos
because
if the process of beta-decay starts with the release of neutrinos
this is how you measure beta-decay in neutrons
given a sample of 40,000 neutrons
you
simply
Count neutrinos - an antineutrino
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

As conversely
if the electron is the first product of beta-decay
given a sample of 40,000 neutrons
you
simply
Count electrons
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

This approach
is
treating this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
as a radio-active sample emitting particles
where
you simply count the emitted particles
either antineutrinos or electrons
as
each particle is a neutron that has decayed
To be deducted from the sample of the 40,000 neutrons
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
"Then the detector shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. Finally all shutters were opened for 200 to 400 s to allow the whole installation to be drained of all remaining UCN and for vacuum pumping. 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 (seeFig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, you did not read it did you

The instant this free neutron emits a neutrino
this neutron is dead in the water
there is no going back
so
even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay

open this trap, jimmybobber, there could be 40,0000 neutrons left after 15minutes
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay
Even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville and Benni

They are using a microstrip detector to detect how many neutrons are left over after a certain storage time.

"After the storage the remaining UCN are emptied through the exit shutter (7) and neutron guide (9) into the stored neutron detector (10)"
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville and Benni

In this experiment they are counting neutrons left after different storage time.

They are not detecting protons, electrons, or antineutrinos from the free neutron decay in this experiment.

http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, you are still not reading beta-decay

It is irrelevant how many neutrons are in the trap
when the trap is opened
because
you are observing neutrons presently undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count currently decaying neutrons
because
they are no longer neutrons
they have undergone an irreversible process
and
consequently cannot be counted
Even though you might be observing them undergoing beta-decay
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville

Dude the neutrons at the end of the experiment are still neutrons. They haven't decayed. They aren't undergoing the process of decay.
What you just wrote is nonsense.
##### jimmybobber
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2019
double post.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, when these 40,000 neutrons are counted into the trap

At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly
but
the neutron could be a still recognisable as a neutron if the trap is opened
but
any neutrons currently undergoing beta-decay cannot be physically counted as neutrons
which
essentially jimmybobber, is all the 40,000 neutrons in the trap
you have to count the particles of decay
as
each particle is neutron undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count neutrons coming out the trap as these are decaying neutrons
so
do not count
Only particle emission counts, jimmybobber
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville you said

"At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly"

That's ridiculous. And so is the rest of your post.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
,when these 40,000 neutrons are counted into the trap

At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly
but
the neutron could be a still recognisable as a neutron if the trap is opened
but
any neutrons currently undergoing beta-decay cannot be physically counted as neutrons
which
essentially jimmybobber,is all the 40,000 neutrons in the trap
you have to count the particles of decay
as
each particle is neutron undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count neutrons coming out the trap as these are decaying neutrons
so
do not count
Only particle emission counts, jimmybobber

The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons that are emitted at the instant beta decay occurs. One proton is emitted for every neutron that decays.The reason protons are counted is due to their positive charge & large mass size compared to the other decay byproducts, and by the way, this decay is not counted in half life units.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
All this trap does is count neutrons not beta-decay

jimmybobber> neutrons at the end of the experiment are still neutrons. They haven't decayed

This UNC trap is constantly creating an anomalous number of neutrons which obviously being constantly created are being counted as neutrons
but
jimmybobber, as this trap is not counting products of beta-decay
this UNC trap cannot tell whether these anomalous neutrons are decaying

In point of fact, jimmybobber
this UNC trap
cannot
tell
if any neutrons are undergoing beta-decay
All this trap does is count neutrons
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019

Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........

F***wit. Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life. Get over it, thicko.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
An irreversible process
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons that are emitted at the instant beta decay occurs. One proton is emitted for every neutron that decays.The reason protons are counted is due to their positive charge & large mass size compared to the other decay byproducts, and by the way, this decay is not counted in half life units

There you are jimmybobber
the proton is as massive as the neutron
the proton is the last stage of beta-decay
the beta-decay started long ago
when the 40,000 neutrons were inserted in the trap
the count starts when the first product of beta-starts
because
It is irreversible
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

Of course it wasn't "well thought out", it was worded in just that fashion to be DELIBERATELY vague, to allow a pathway to one of Pop-Cosmology's holy grails, an eternal neutron for the vaunted neutron star that has no basis in nuclear physics for it's hypothetical existence.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
this decay is not counted in half life units.

Yes it is. Liar. And that is why you are running scared from emailing the authors, or posting your inane crap on a physics forum. You are a dickhead.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, concerning protons

The remaining neutrons at 3000 seconds
are
not actually neutrons at all, are they
according to you
the are actually protons
because
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
the are actually protons
because
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons

Clueless idiot. Have you even read the papers, you retard? Looked at the figures? They are counting neutrons, you cretin.
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville

They used a microstrip detector to detect neutrons not a scintillation detector. Do you even read what people post.

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

" The detector is a microstrip detector[17]..."

"[17] A. Oed, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 263 (1988) 351."
https://inspirehe...73?ln=en
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
Cloud-Chamber Measurement of the Half-Life of the Neutron
https://journals.....114.285

The Lives & Times of Neutrons
Los Alamos National Laboratory (2016)

Officially, the neutron half-life is quoted at 611.0 ± 1.0 seconds. This level of precision is not atypical among particle-physics lifetimes, but it is far from the best.

And the only people saying it doesn't have a half-life, are a couple of uneducated, scientifically illiterate tossers on a comments section. Tough luck, losers - you lost. Now go and crawl back under whichever stones you slithered out from.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........

Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life.
.......half life units are not used in the resultant beta decay counts of this lifetime measurement run , or for that matter anywhere else in this measurement run is the subject of "half-life" even mentioned, it's just another one of your Pop-Cosmology fantasies trying to INSERT words that have no useful basis for Beta Particle Decay measurements.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life.
.......half life units are not used in the resultant beta decay counts of this lifetime measurement run , or for that matter anywhere else in this measurement run is the subject of "half-life" even mentioned, it's just another one of your Pop-Cosmology fantasies trying to INSERT words that have no useful basis for Beta Particle Decay measurements.

Wrong, moron. Look at the figure you clueless cretin. The number of counts halves every ~ 600s.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
The Lives & Times of Neutrons
Los Alamos National Laboratory (2016)
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Left out the link last time. And a couple more;

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

Measurement of the neutron half-life
Bondarenko, L . N. et al.
http://www.jetple...4154.pdf
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
And here is the National Nuclear Data Center reporting a half-life of 613.9 s.

https://www.nndc....&n=1
##### Socialism
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
It seems unlikely to me that 1) neutrons would not follow normal decay patterns, decaying all at once, and 2) they would decay that fast
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
The Lives & Times of Neutrons
Los Alamos National Laboratory (2016)
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

.....then o'brilliant Anthropologist that you are, why don't you take up these issues with the nuclear physicists who did the neutron measurement run you keep referring to?

Explain to those physicists who are less smarter than YOU why their 14.7 minute beta decay conclusions are wrong & why they should have been quoting half-life decay units. Afraid they'll laugh at you?
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Benni From the paper jonesdave linked.

"However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay"

"Officially, the neutron half-life is quoted at 611.0 ±1.0 seconds.

"The upshot is this: beam experiments ought to calculate the neutron half-life quite reliably. An average of beam experiment measurements over the last 25 years or so gives a neutron half-life of 615.5 ± 1.5 seconds"

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
double post removed. Mouse issue.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
Mathematical manipulation in non decaying protons

This neutron is now not a neutron but a proton
you collect 40,000 neutrons
put them in a trap
and
release them at timed intervals
and
what do you do
you get a scintillation detector that detects and counts the protons
so
as you open the gate at 100s
a flood of protons and neutrons fly out
you count them
you can only count protons, what happened to the neutrons
then you repeat the process at timed intervals
as when these 40,000 neutrons actually decayed before the door is opened
it is not possible to know how long these protons have been sitting in this trap
because
you are counting protons not neutrons
and
only when this trap is opened
as
how long is this trap opened
how fast are the protons emerging from this trap
so
that you arrive at the requisite exponential curve
to
arrive
at
your
Mathematical manipulation in non decaying protons sitting in a trap
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
Explain to those physicists who are less smarter than YOU why their 14.7 minute beta decay conclusions are wrong & why they should have been quoting half-life decay units.

You really are thick, aren't you, D-K boy? (rhetorical). The 14.7 minutes, you cretin, is the mean lifetime. Anything that beta-decays will have a mean lifetime. And from the mean lifetime the half-life can be calculated by multiplying it by ln 2. Why do you think that the neutron is assigned a half-life, you cretin? Go away, you thick bastard.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
this neutron is now not a neutron but a proton
you collect 40,000 neutrons
put them in a trap
and
release them at timed intervals
and
what do you do
you get a scintillation detector that detects and counts the protons

No, you clueless cretin, they are not counting protons. Read the f***ing paper, you thick swine.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
this neutron is now not a neutron but a proton
you collect 40,000 neutrons
put them in a trap
and
release them at timed intervals
and
what do you do
you get a scintillation detector that detects and counts the protons

No, you clueless cretin, they are not counting protons. Read the f***ing paper, you thick swine.

granville did not say they were counting protons, it was jimmybobber
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville You said:

"this neutron is now not a neutron but a proton
you collect 40,000 neutrons
put them in a trap
and
release them at timed intervals
and
what do you do
you get a scintillation detector that detects and counts the protons"

You said protons dude in the above quote!
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
I think this is the equivalent of trying to teach quantum theory to a couple of chimpanzees. However, I'll try again.
The neutrons are released into a storage tank for a certain amount of time. They are then counted by a neutron detector. This is repeated a number of times for differing storage times. So, run 1 might be terminated after 100s. Run 2 after 400s. And so on, up to a run of 3000s. That is what the figure 2 from Pichlmaier is representing. They did not do one run of 3000s, and count the neutrons at various intervals in that run. As they say;

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

At least try to understand it.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@Benni From the paper jonesdave linked.

"However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay"

"Officially, the neutron half-life is quoted at 611.0 ±1.0 seconds.

"The upshot is this: beam experiments ought to calculate the neutron half-life quite reliably. An average of beam experiment measurements over the last 25 years or so gives a neutron half-life of 615.5 ± 1.5 seconds"

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

So what? None of this has ANYTHING at all to do with measuring the ~14.7 minute lifetime beta decay of a neutron which is not measured in units of half-life !!!!!
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
So what? None of this has ANYTHING at all to do with measuring the ~14.7 minute lifetime beta decay of a neutron !!!!!

What a cretin. That is a mean lifetime, you knob. Mean lifetime x ln 2 = half-life, you uneducated tosspot.

##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Benni

half-life is equal to ln(2) times the mean lifetime.

So the half-life of free neutrons equals ln(2) * 14.7 = ~10.2

or mean lifetime = half life divided by ln(2) = 10.2/ln(2) = ~14.7

One is a function of the other Benni. You can't have one without the other.
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
@Benni

It's such basic math I am dumbfounded that you don't understand it.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
@Benni

half-life is equal to ln(2) times the mean lifetime.

So the half-life of free neutrons equals ln(2) * 14.7 = ~10.2

or mean lifetime = half life divided by ln(2) = 10.2/ln(2) = ~14.7

One is a function of the other Benni. You can't have one without the other.
It's such basic math I am dumbfounded that you don't understand it.
.....then you should explain this to the nuclear physicists who performed the measurement run from which you two neophytes have been making your references. The two of you need to collaborate & explain to them why an Anthropologist & a software engineer are so much smarter than they are about nuclear physics & why they erroneously come up with their lifetime ~14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron, THEN explain to them what it should be.

##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
~14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron, THEN explain to them what it should be.

That is a mean lifetime, you stupid prick. Why do you think the neutron has a half-life? As shown in several papers I linked, including a PDF from Los Alamos NL. No, shitforbrains, you need to explain why they are detecting considerable numbers of neutrons well after 14.7 minutes, you cretin. And why are those detections all falling on an exponential decay curve? Why is there no massive drop off at ~ 880 seconds? You are bloody clueless, you moron.
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
Benni's can't accept that free neutrons have a half life because he thinks a newly freed neutron literally decays exactly 14.7 minutes later.

So using Benni's logic they started out with 40000 neutrons and at 10.3 minutes there were still 40000 neutrons and then at 14.7 minutes they all decayed at the same time!
##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
Benni's counts per storage time graph would show 40000 neutrons until 14.7 minutes (882 seconds) and then immediately drop to zero.

This is what really happened.
http://www.imageb...02117504

##### jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
40000 neutrons to start Benni.
Glass storage trap coated with Fomblin oil to reflected neutrons from exiting or entering.
At the end of run they guide neutrons to a microstrip detector and detect the remaining neutrons.
No scintillation detector was used. There were no detections of electrons, protons, or antineutrinos
##### jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2019
It's astounding Benni that you are completely wrong about everything. Everything!
It's equally impressive to watch you attempt to bend the laws of Physics to fit with your own personal beliefs.

I see you've gone through life believing your a genius. The day you realize your not is gonna be life shattering for you. On the bright side, if you survive, you will become a better human being.
##### Phyllis Harmonic
3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
"My greatest criticism against Atheists is the intellectual superiority binge most of them are prone to. . . "

". . . it does leave me with a sense of awe that I have a deep capacity for learning skills that few walking the face of the planet share with me,...."

Such hypocrisy is not a surprise coming from someone who fails to support any of their conjectures or opinions with legitimate research, who lies constantly, and repeatedly shows themselves to be a rank poseur with a sub-standard IQ.
##### Phyllis Harmonic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2019
-removed duplicate post-
##### hat1208
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@jonesdave @jimmybobber @Phyllis Harmonic

Benni the butt hurt plagiarist and his sock puppet are pulling your chains. That is what a troll does.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
Ok... Just so I'm clear...
Neutron mean and half life have what to do with revealing the black hole at the heart of our galaxy?
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
Ok... Just so I'm clear...
Neutron mean and half life have what to do with revealing the black hole at the heart of our galaxy?
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...

Because the tosspot Benni thinks that his perverse view of all free neutrons decaying at 14.7 minutes precludes neutron stars. This is a lie that he keeps trotting out, in order to show that neutron stars (and therefore, BHs) cannot form. This misunderstanding is forgivable in such a scientifically illiterate cretin, who does not understand beta decay and degeneracy.
In short; as long as idiots like Benni, Granville and others are around, many discussions are liable to be hijacked by their uneducated nonsense.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
Cabin fever in a hole
Whydening Gyre>Ok... Just so I'm clear...
Neutron mean and half life have what to do with revealing the black hole at the heart of our galaxy?
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...

Whydening Gyre, a neutron is a pulsar star is a neutron star is a blackhole
A blackhole is derived from neutrons, old bean - that's the connection
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
Whydening Gyre, a neutron is a pulsar star is a neutron star is a blackhole
A blackhole is derived from neutrons, old bean - that's the connection

Neutron stars are observed, you eejit. Remember the gravitational waves from the merger of two of them, a little while ago? So your idiocy is in vain, as it is already disproved.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
GW170817, two pulsar stars in binary orbit
Whydening Gyre, a neutron is a pulsar star is a neutron star is a blackhole
A blackhole is derived from neutrons, old bean - that's the connection

Neutron stars are observed, you eejit. Remember the gravitational waves from the merger of two of them, a little while ago? So your idiocy is in vain, as it is already disproved.

Two binary pulsar stars at 13million Lys were observed
the only distinguishing feature of pulsar stars
are
their
Milli second electromagnetic pulse
##### Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2019
Cabin fever in a hole
Whydening Gyre>Ok... Just so I'm clear...
Neutron mean and half life have what to do with revealing the black hole at the heart of our galaxy?
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...

Whydening Gyre, a neutron is a pulsar star is a neutron star is a blackhole
A blackhole is derived from neutrons, old bean - that's the connection

Sorry, g'vill, but I believe they are primarily protons and electrons under tremendous gravitiational pressure. Thereby PRODUCING neutrons....
##### Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...

Because the tosspot Benni thinks that his perverse view of all free neutrons decaying at 14.7 minutes precludes neutron stars. This is a lie that he keeps trotting out, in order to show that neutron stars (and therefore, BHs) cannot form. ...

Neutrons, en masse in a group, while not exhibiting charge, are still subject to gravity - which should have a discernible effect on their lifetimes...
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2019
You guys ALL appear to be exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever...

Because the tosspot Benni thinks that his perverse view of all free neutrons decaying at 14.7 minutes precludes neutron stars. This is a lie that he keeps trotting out, in order to show that neutron stars (and therefore, BHs) cannot form. ...

Neutrons, en masse in a group, while not exhibiting charge, are still subject to gravity - which should have a discernible effect on their lifetimes...

Indeed. They are subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In other words, degeneracy. Just as electrons are in white dwarfs. This concept is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of Benni or Granny.
##### granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
Cabin fever in a hole
Whydening Gyre> Neutrons, en masse in a group, while not exhibiting charge, are still subject to gravity - which should have a discernible effect on their lifetimes...

Whydening Gyre, this a new angle Benni has not approached
Welcome to Cabin fever in a hole
you need to address Benni with these new findings
then you can join the long list of poor soles
who have agued their idea against
Benni
The phys.org neutron supremo
Your bridge awaits, Oh Whydening Gyre
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@Granville and Benni

In this experiment they are counting neutrons left after different storage time.

They are not detecting protons, electrons, or antineutrinos...free neutron decay in this experiment.

says jimmyBooboo

The problem (IMO) seems to be that the AGES of all of the pristine Free Neutrons WHEN THEY WERE CAPTURED into the "glass storage trap" were not all of the SAME AGE, i.e. when each had first emerged out of their atomic nuclei and BEFORE each began the decay process. IOW, their not ALL emerging precisely in the same exact nanosecond negates the whole experiment when counting only Free Neutrons.
In order to get a TRUE READING of Mean Life and the so-called Half-life, EVERY ONE of the Free Neutrons would have had to EMERGE ALL AT ONCE from their respective nucleus to get a TRUE READING/COUNTING of each one's Mean/Half-life. That would require knowing precisely when EACH of the 40000 had emerged before counting all of them together

##### MrBojangles
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
The problem (IMO) seems to be that the AGES of all of the pristine Free Neutrons WHEN THEY WERE CAPTURED into the "glass storage trap" were not all of the SAME AGE, i.e. when each had first emerged out of their atomic nuclei and BEFORE each began the decay process. IOW, their not ALL emerging precisely in the same exact nanosecond negates the whole experiment when counting only Free Neutrons.
In order to get a TRUE READING of Mean Life and the so-called Half-life, EVERY ONE of the Free Neutrons would have had to EMERGE ALL AT ONCE from their respective nucleus to get a TRUE READING/COUNTING of each one's Mean/Half-life. That would require knowing precisely when EACH of the 40000 had emerged before counting all of them together

Is it truly impossible for you to convey a point without randomly capitalizing words?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
-contd-
@jimmyBooboo
A proper experiment gives the benefit of the doubt to the thing that is experimented on that it is not random/chaotic such as being of varying ages or types. A pound of feathers may weigh the same as a pound of aluminum - but they are still not the same.
Granville is correct that electrons, protons, and neutrinos could also have been counted - since only ONE of each particle emerges from the Free Neutron during decay. Perhaps the scientists didn't have the means to count them - but only remaining Neutrons?
IF they are unable to capture all 40000 Neutrons at the very nanosecond of each one's emergence out of each one's Nucleus and begin their countdown from that very moment - then their results are inaccurate.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
The problem (IMO) seems to be that the AGES of all of the pristine Free Neutrons WHEN THEY WERE CAPTURED into the "glass storage trap" were not all of the SAME AGE, i.e. when each had first emerged out of their atomic nuclei and BEFORE each began the decay process. IOW, their not ALL emerging precisely in the same exact nanosecond negates the whole experiment when counting only Free Neutrons.
In order to get a TRUE READING of Mean Life and the so-called Half-life, EVERY ONE of the Free Neutrons would have had to EMERGE ALL AT ONCE from their respective nucleus to get a TRUE READING/COUNTING of each one's Mean/Half-life. That would require knowing precisely when EACH of the 40000 had emerged before counting all of them together

Is it truly impossible for you to convey a point without randomly capitalizing words?
says Bojangles

I do it for emphasis - to get the point across better. Why, does it offend you?
##### jimmybobber
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

Google neutron generator and try to find out how many they can generate in a second.
I'm pretty sure the experimenters thought of this as they were devising their experiment and calculating the results.

And the caps make you look angry or even crazed.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

Google neutron generator and try to find out how many they can generate in a second.
I'm pretty sure the experimenters thought of this as they were devising their experiment and calculating the results.

And the caps make you look angry or even crazed.

says jimmyBooboo

Neither angry nor crazed am I - but merely promoting my own gedankenerfahrung.
It's not how many they can generate in a second (or nanosecond), but the quality/parameters of the Particle(s), as opposed to quantity which have been captured in the 'glass storage trap'.
Perhaps they did - and perhaps they didn't - bother to consider the consequences if they didn't produce pristine, newly emerged Free Neutrons. But if they did not, then the result of the count is meaningless and should be done again with the proper parameters taken into account.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

I'm pretty sure they did consider the age of the neutrons.

Fail.
##### Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019

The problem (IMO) seems to be that the AGES of all of the pristine Free Neutrons WHEN THEY WERE CAPTURED into the "glass storage trap" were not all of the SAME AGE, i.e. when each had first emerged out of their atomic nuclei and BEFORE each began the decay process. IOW, their not ALL emerging precisely in the same exact nanosecond negates the whole experiment when counting only Free Neutrons.
In order to get a TRUE READING of Mean Life and the so-called Half-life, EVERY ONE of the Free Neutrons would have had to EMERGE ALL AT ONCE from their respective nucleus to get a TRUE READING/COUNTING of each one's Mean/Half-life. That would require knowing precisely when EACH of the 40000 had emerged before counting all of them together

An exact experiment would be if they only release one neutron and trap for the decay...
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

I'm pretty sure they did consider the age of the neutrons.

Fail.

##### jimmybobber
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
An exact experiment would be if they only release one neutron and trap for the decay...
says Whyde

Since it was a "SCIENTIFIC experiment", perhaps they should have tried both. But they would still have needed to time the emergence of the ONE Freed Neutron precisely as it emerged from its nucleus before it started its decay process. I ASSUME that the decay process for the one Neutron begins almost as soon as it emerges from its nucleus - which should necessitate the timing as soon as it emerges.
With the timing/commencement of the decay processes of all 40000 Free Neutrons inside the glass, it is even more important to ascertain the exact emergence age of each one. IF anyone of those 40000 are older or younger - then the whole experiment is a failure as that discrepancy is the equivalent of placing healthy teenagers into a nursing home full of old people who are on their way out.
Well, perhaps not as drastic as all that. lol
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

says jimmyBooboo

Since you have already said, "I'm pretty sure", that would mean that YOU have already read the paper - and if you had already read the paper, then you should be able to copy and paste the pertinent information here in order to refute my opinions.
If you say, "I'm pretty sure" but have NOT read the paper - then you are only guessing as to what it is that the paper says.
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

Look at my previous posts. It's clear I've read the paper and understood it.
Major fail man.
##### jimmybobber
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
delete double post
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

Was it you that suggested a free neutron might be brittle?

"Once a Neutron leaves the nucleus, it becomes unstable, possibly brittle, as there is nothing to hold it together. As such, its instability causes it to weaken further to the point of decay."

What the hell is a brittle neutron?

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

Was it you that suggested a free neutron might be brittle?

"Once a Neutron leaves the nucleus, it becomes unstable, possibly brittle, as there is nothing to hold it together. As such, its instability causes it to weaken further to the point of decay."

What the hell is a brittle neutron?

says jimmyboo

LOL Of course the Freed Neutron becomes unstable and possibly brittle, which is why 3 particles are able to come out of the Freed Neutron - like a 'house of cards'. How else did you think that an electron, a proton and a neutrino are able to leave the decaying Neutron - by osmosis? Does another particle use a spanner to break down the walls of the Neutron to let the 3 particles within it go free? And I said, "POSSIBLY brittle" - do you know the definition of the word, 'possibly' or do you disregard the parts that you don't like?

Now jimmyBooboo will claim that I'm saying that a Freed Neutron is a house of cards. LOL
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

And it's jimmybobber not jimmybooboo.
Is jimmybooboo some creepy pet name you have for me?
Really creepy guy man dude.

It's jimmybobber because enjoy fishing. You know bobbers are used to fish?
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

So what is your scientific definition of "brittle" ?

Your a jackass and a creep that has given me a pet name.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
@jonesdave @jimmybobber @Phyllis Harmonic

Benni the butt hurt plagiarist and his sock puppet are pulling your chains. That is what a troll does.
says hat1208

LMAO I see that this hat1208 is actually Da Schneibo alias Da Pussyman's sockpoopet. Same words, same style, same type of accusations, and same stupidity as Da Pussyman. These are the types of soiled rags that jonesdave hangs out with in physorg phorums. And all led by Captain Beelzebub.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU please define these terms you have used:

"sockpoopet"
"Pussyman"
"phorums"
"Beelzebub"
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

So what is your scientific definition of "brittle" ?

Your a jackass and a creep that has given me a pet name.
says jimmyBooboo

Well, I could have called you a twat, a pillock, a burke, a tosspot, a f***wit and/or a F***ing lying, incompetent tosspot, but I'm not jonesdave - sorry.

Brittle = brittle | ˈbridl |
hard but liable to break or shatter easily: her bones became fragile and brittle.
• (of a sound, especially a person's voice) unpleasantly hard and sharp and showing signs of instability or nervousness: a brittle laugh.
• (of a person or behavior) appearing aggressive or hard but unstable or nervous within: her manner was artificially bright and brittle.

The last part may be a definition of your characteristics, jimmyBooBoo
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2019
deleted double post.
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

So whats a neutron made of that makes it so brittle?
What "shatters" a neutron?

Let me guess. It's part of your ToE that you haven't released to the public yet for free.
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

You are worse than Benni and Granville. They are just stupid. You are insane.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2019
@SEU

So whats a neutron made of that makes it so brittle?
What "shatters" a neutron?

Let me guess. It's part of your ToE that you haven't released to the public yet for free.
says little jimmyBooBoo

ROFLMAO!!!
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
~14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron, THEN explain to them what it

That is a mean lifetime, you stupid prick. Why do you think the neutron has a half-life? As shown in several papers I linked, including a PDF from Los Alamos NL. No, shitforbrains, you need to explain why they are detecting considerable numbers of neutrons well after 14.7 minutes, you cretin. And why are those detections all falling on an exponential decay curve? Why is there no massive drop off at ~ 880 seconds? You are bloody clueless, you moron.
says jonesybonesy

Well jonesybonesy, I see that you're still the same old nasty SOB as always.
Be that as it may - the actual reason that you have all of those 'intervals' where some decayed and some didn't - again and again - is that the Free Neutrons that were captured in the glass trap were not all of the same age. The researchers captured Free Neutrons of different ages and different time of emergence from each individual's nucleus
##### observicist
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2019
@SEU

If every neutron decays after 14.7 minutes, and not all the free neutrons were the same age, that means the youngest were released the instant they entered the trap. The older ones would have decayed prior to 14.7 minutes, and the youngest would have all decayed after 14.7 minutes, meaning none would be left after 14.7 minutes, yet, many were left after 14.7 minutes. The math of your explanation does not work out -- it just makes your and @Benni's claim even more ridiculous.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
@SEU

If every neutron decays after 14.7 minutes, and not all the free neutrons were the same age, that means the youngest were released the instant they entered the trap. The older ones would have decayed prior to 14.7 minutes, and the youngest would have all decayed after 14.7 minutes, meaning none would be left after 14.7 minutes, yet, many were left after 14.7 minutes. The math of your explanation does not work out -- it just makes your and @Benni's claim even more ridiculous.

Actually, the last free neutrons to be captured in the trap had been generated before they had been fully freed from each one's nucleus - meaning that they were still not at the stage where they were starting to decay and ejecting 1 electron, 1 proton and 1 antineutrino. When counting the oldest generated Free Neutrons, had the experiment count stopped there - ALL of the same aged Free Neutrons would have had a decay "mean lifetime" of 14.7 minutes.
-contd-
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
-contd-
@observicist
But since they continued to generate more and more Free Neutrons in order to attain the 40000 number, the trap was full again but with younger Free Neutrons that had more recently come out of each one's nucleus. They were also counted, which is why the younger ones lasted way past the 14.7 minutes that the previous batch (which had already decayed by then) had gone through.
It seems that they did not stop generating more Free Neutrons until they reached the amount of 40000 Free Neutrons - different ages.
If they had generated ALL 40000 Free Neutrons out of each one's nucleus AT THE SAME TIME, and then stopped generating more, then ALL of them would have decayed and ejected a proton, electron and antineutrino within the mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes.
They met their goal of counting 40000.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
-contd-
Also, it's obvious that they did not stop their Timer from going past the 14.7 minutes in which the first batch of Free Neutrons had decayed and ejected the 3 particles - so that the next ones to start their decay process were also timed by the same Timer that had already gone past the 14.7, so that that next batch would have decayed at. let's say, 21.9 minutes AFTER the first batch had expired at 14.7 minutes. Then the next batch was timed to decay at an even later set of minutes from the time of the first batch decay....and so on until all of the 40.000 had been counted and decayed.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Mathematical manipulation in decaying neutrons in a trap

SEU, The impression gained that all the 40,000 neutrons were generated together taking no more than one second to complete the process

"SEU> they continued to generate more and more Free Neutrons in order to attain the 40,000 number"

Surely they did not continually create neutrons and feed them in a stream over the 3,000 seconds
till the requisite 40,000 neutrons were obtained

because
if
40,0000 neutrons do not fit in the trap all at once
if you feed 40,000 neutrons over 14.7minutes
this means the last neutrons decay in 14.7minutes
so
There are neutrons still decaying in 29.4minutes
meaning
You have an exponential decay graph over 30minutes, with neutrons still remaining long past their life time!
so
as we
Talk of Obfuscation in neutrons
we
have
Mathematical manipulation in decaying neutrons in a trap
##### Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
...
Surely they did not continually create neutrons and feed them in a stream over the 3,000 seconds
till the requisite 40,000 neutrons were obtained
...

Soooo. I guess it would behoove someone to ask that question - How long did it take to produce 40000 neutrons and inject them in a trap. Oh... they are produced by fission chain reaction by the way... pretty fast. I'll bet you could create a neutron burst in short order.
In the meantime, the ARTICLE mentions an odd radio emission from Sag A (seemingly pointed directly at us) that goes un-discussed...
A reason for this?
… Anyone?

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
Well jonesybonesy, I see that you're still the same old nasty SOB as always.
Be that as it may - the actual reason that you have all of those 'intervals' where some decayed and some didn't - again and again - is that the Free Neutrons that were captured in the glass trap were not all of the same age. The researchers captured Free Neutrons of different ages and different time of emergence from each individual's nucleus

Stupid idiot. They are not different intervals, you clown. I have already explained that the experiment was run numerous times, for differing run times.. Those times were 100, 400, 700, 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000s. At the end of those time periods, the remaining neutrons were counted. Read the paper, and look at the figure. A competent high school student could understand it. You are quite clearly not at that level. Go away, you are thick.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Neutron stars are observed,
......there are no such pictures of observational evidence. There are no telescopes in existence that can image something less than ten miles in diameter from a distance of 500 lyrs as the closest N-star is predicted to be.

Remember the gravitational waves from the merger of two of them, a little while ago?
....... nice evidence for proving GRAVITY exists, that's all.

##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Benni thinks that his perverse view of all free neutrons decaying at 14.7 minutes precludes neutron stars. This is a lie that he keeps trotting out, in order to show that neutron stars (and therefore, BHs) cannot form

Neutrons, en masse in a group, while not exhibiting charge, are still subject to gravity - which should have a discernible effect on their lifetimes

What's gravity got to do with it?

They are subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In other words, degeneracy. Just as electrons are in white dwarfs. This concept is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of Benni or Granny.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that, in an atom or molecule, no two electrons can have the same four electronic quantum numbers. As an orbital can contain a maximum of only two electrons, the two electrons must have opposing spins.

A neutron is not an atom with ORBITALS, therefore Pauli Exclusion CANNOT apply.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
-contd-
Also, it's obvious that they did not stop their Timer from going past the 14.7 minutes in which the first batch of Free Neutrons had decayed and ejected the 3 particles - so that the next ones to start their decay process were also timed by the same Timer that had already gone past the 14.7, so that that next batch would have decayed at. let's say, 21.9 minutes AFTER the first batch had expired at 14.7 minutes. Then the next batch was timed to decay at an even later set of minutes from the time of the first batch decay....and so on until all of the 40.000 had been counted and decayed.

Wrong. Read the paper, you clown. How thick do you need to be to not understand it? Seriously? Neutrons released. Experiment is stopped at 100s, and neutrons counted. Next experiment does precisely the same thing, but runs for 400s. Etc. Results of each run are plotted on an exponential decay curve. As shown. High school stuff. Try to keep up.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
@Benni
The Pauli Exclusion Principle applies to all fermions.

"In particle physics, a fermion is a particle that follows Fermi–Dirac statistics. These particles obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as all composite particles made of an odd number of these, such as all baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions differ from bosons, which obey Bose–Einstein statistics. "
https://en.wikipe.../Fermion

"The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin–statistics theorem of 1940. "
https://en.wikipe...rinciple
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
A neutron is not an atom with ORBITALS, therefore Pauli Exclusion CANNOT apply.

Yes it can, you thick idiot. Neutrons are fermions, and thus are subject to the PEP. Read the scientific literature, you clown. You are the only idiot saying this, and you are a moron.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
....... nice evidence for proving GRAVITY exists, that's all.

Thick loser. It was seen in EM, you clown. And it matched very well the predictions for a neutron star merger. Including r-process nucleosynthesis. You are just too thick to understand the science.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
> Egg

The problem (IMO) seems to be that the AGES of all of the pristine Free Neutrons WHEN THEY WERE CAPTURED into the "glass storage trap" were not all of the SAME AGE.
......exactly correct, but there is a reason WHY they are not ALL of the "SAME AGE" & are not counted.

When we set up our scintillation detectors in the lab for gamma radiation spectroscopy, we take a BACKGROUND COUNT before doing a measurement run.

The environment is never pristine because all elements have a rate of radioactive decay that includes the materials from which the UCN Proton Trap is made. Then there is radioactive contamination from the ground & issues like cosmic rays that are constantly swirling around our heads 24/7, in addition to which there is the length of the tunnel from the reactor neutron source to the UCN Proton Trap. This background radiation is measured & subtracted from the neutron lifetime measurement run. I do this almost everyday.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
^^^Complete crap. As usual. Read the paper, you thick swine.
##### jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
I do this almost everyday.

Bullshit.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
Then there is radioactive contamination from the ground & issues like cosmic rays that are constantly swirling around our heads 24/7

WTF have cosmic rays got to do with anything, you fool? The counts from all the runs fall pretty much perfectly on an exponential decay curve you thick swine. Any background contamination would not. Jesus, you are stupid. Get back to the mopping, you clueless poser.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Filling this trap in intervals of time

Ah! "jonesdave> the experiment was run numerous times, for differing run times"
so
they filled the trap up at 100s
then
they filled the trap up at 400s
then
they filled the trap up at 700s
then
they filled the trap up at 1000s
then
they filled the trap up at 1,300s
then
they filled the trap up at 2,000
then
they filled the trap up at 3000s
then
and so on it went.....
What on earth have they been doing
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
> Egg,

I ASSUME that the decay process for the one Neutron begins almost as soon as it emerges from its nucleus - which should necessitate the timing as soon as it emerges.
......the time a free neutron takes to travel the distance from the neutron source is less than a second, but it can vary depending on the length of the tunnel from the reactor core to the gate of the Proton Trap, the longer the tunnel the more correction factor time lapse nuclear physicists must include along with subtracting background radiation measurement within the Proton Trap.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
Proton Trap,

There is no proton trap, you cretin.
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
@Granville

They filled up the trap at the beginning of each run at t = 0.
They did not re-fill the trap during the runs..
Can you please read the paper and try to understand it instead of guessing how the experiment was done. You are just making stuff up.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
So now there is no proton trap

If
they
measure the protons
and
there is no proton trap containing the protons
this
Introduces variability in the final measurement
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
If every neutron decays after 14.7 minutes, and not all the free neutrons were the same age, that means the youngest were released the instant they entered the trap. The older ones would have decayed prior to 14.7 minutes, and the youngest would have all decayed after 14.7 minutes, meaning none would be left after 14.7 minutes, yet, many were left after 14.7 minutes.
Repeat.....this is because of BACKGROUND CONTAMINATION & the reason we do a measurement run COUNT to measure & subtract this anomalous count from the NEUTRON LIFETIME run. I explained this to SEU just above.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
Repeat.....this is because of BACKGROUND CONTAMINATION

No, it is not, you ignorant cretin. As explained. How the **** would background contamination (lol) fall on an exponential decay curve precisely defined by that of the neutrons? You are a wilfully ignorant tosser.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
>Egg,

Also, it's obvious that they did not stop their Timer from going past the 14.7 minutes in which the first batch of Free Neutrons had decayed and ejected the 3 particles - so that the next ones to start their decay process were also timed by the same Timer that had already gone past the 14.7
......and the reason they continued the count well beyond 14.7 is to see if post test BACKGROUND COUNT is the same as the pre-test BACKGROUND COUNT, if they are different then there is a likely source of contamination that will skew the data of the final proton count & the test will be run again.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2019
and the reason they continued the count well beyond 14.7 is to see if post test BACKGROUND COUNT is the same as the pre-test BACKGROUND COUNT, if they are different then there is a likely source of contamination that will skew the data of the final proton count & the test will be run again.

Utter bullshit, you lying prick. Why does it fall on an exponential decay curve, you fraudulent poser? Talk about thick!

##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
@Benni

There were no background neutrons contaminating the experiment.
And they didn't count the protons!
They counted the neutrons left over!

You are just making crap up to save face hoping people don't actually read the paper.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
final proton count & the test will be run again.

There is no proton count, you moron. Read the paper, thicko. They count neutrons, in a neutron detector, you idiot.
##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Wow, physics Just So Stories. This one seems to be How The Benni Got Its Asshole.
##### granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2019
In total 280,000neutrons
jimmybobber > @Granville
They filled up the trap at the beginning of each run at t = 0.
They did not re-fill the trap during the runs..
Can you please read the paper and try to understand it instead of guessing how the experiment was done. You are just making stuff up.

Thank you, jimmybobber
When describing this trap
concerning
timed intervals
and exactly how this trap is filled
then as the flood gates are opened
exactly how this event was timed

i.e. From 0s, 40,000neutrons in 1milli second were inserted in the trap
At 100 seconds the gate opened and the protons were counted
The experiment repeated over a range of increasing intervals
in total 7 timed intervals
Equalling 7x40,000 = 280,000neutrons
Is this a clear experiment, jimmybobber – this should be discussed as it is
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin–statistics theorem of 1940. "
.....it has never been proven, only surmised, in other words they're just guessing. It gets really ludicrous when they apply Pauli Exclusion to subatomic particles they cannot even prove exists (quarks) & build a house of cards exclusion principle on theory & then proclaim the fantasy existence of the eternal degenerate neutron to which the 14.7 lifetime decay rate does not apply, Pop-Cosmology fantasy on naked display.

##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin–statistics theorem of 1940. "
.....it has never been proven, only surmised, in other words they're just guessing. It gets really ludicrous when they apply Pauli Exclusion to subatomic particles they cannot even prove exists (quarks) & build a house of cards exclusion principle on theory & then proclaim the fantasy existence of the eternal degenerate neutron to which the 14.7 lifetime decay rate does not apply, Pop-Cosmology fantasy on naked display.

Sod off you ignorant clown. Go get an education, you clueless tosser. You don't understand Jack about physics, as you have amply shown. Idiot.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Wow, physics Just So Stories. This one seems to be How The Benni Got Its Asshole.

I expect that the arsehole rejected him!
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
final proton count & the test will be run again.

There is no proton count, you moron. Read the paper, thicko. They count neutrons, in a neutron detector, you idiot.
.........mister Anthropologist,, you do some reading, the UCN Trap counts PROTONS, not neutrons, that's why it's called a Proton Trap.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
This eternal degenerate neutron

Apparently an electron can withstand 10x the pressure of a neutron star
which
implies
degenerate neutrons do not exist
as
the proton and electron can withstand the forces inside a neutron star
neutrons, protons and electrons
Sniff at the puny forces of a neutron star
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
.........mister Anthropologist,, you do some reading, the UCN Trap counts PROTONS, not neutrons, that's why it's called a Proton Trap.

No it is not, you thick bastard. Look at figure 1 of that paper, you arsehole. What is labelled as No. 10? Neutron detector, you clueless cretin. Can't even understand the text, or a simple diagram. What a pillock.

##### jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
What does the thick idiot Benni think UCN stands for? Hmmm? Come on, D-K boy, let's hear it.

Hint, for the thickest amongst us; Ultra Cold Neutrons.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
@Benni

They used a microstrip detector to detect passing neutrons.

Like this one:
https://www.scien...97002076
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
After the storage the remaining UCN are emptied through the exit shutter (7) and neutron guide (9) into the ***stored neutron detector (10)***. The detector events were recorded time resolved. The detector is a microstrip detector [17] filled with 50 mbar 3He and 1000 mbar CF4 added as buffer gas.

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

So, Benni is lying again.

##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
@SEU

It's possible to generate an enormous amount of neutrons within one second. This should allay your concern that different ages of the neutrons will affect the outcome of the experiment.

"The IBR-2 reactor with its unique technical approach produces one of the most intense neutron fluxes at the moderator surface among the world's reactors: ~10^16 n/c^2/s, with a power of 1850 MW in pulse."
http://flnph.jinr...es/ibr-2
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
This neutron experiment

"Benni> the time a free neutron takes to travel the distance from the neutron source is less than a second, but it can vary depending on the length of the tunnel from the reactor core to the gate of the Proton Trap, the longer the tunnel the more correction factor time lapse nuclear physicists must include along with subtracting background radiation measurement within the Proton Trap"

How can you correct for an unknown time interval of precise life-time
When this unknown decay starts instantly upon creation
because
The final out come is in +- milli seconds accuracy
as
what have we got

From the neutron source is less than a second
It can vary depending on the length of the tunnel from the reactor core to the gate of the Proton Trap
The longer the tunnel the more correction factor time lapse
as
all this time delay
our
Neutron is decaying unpredictably, in a predictable 14.7 minutes
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Neutron is decaying unpredictably, in a predictable 14.7 minutes

No it is not. Stop commenting on things you don't understand, you clown. i.e. science.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
What does the thick idiot Benni think UCN stands for? Hmmm? Come on, D-K boy, let's hear it.

Hint, for the thickest amongst us; Ultra Cold Neutrons.

Nope, you do not comprehend the fabrication of the the apparatus.

1. Neutrons are sourced from a nuclear reactor through a tunnel that can be hundreds of feet long.
2. Neutrons are then cooled to reduce velocity from the tunnel chamber, thus the term UCN.
3. After UCNs are created, the Trap gate is opened to the electrode chamber where scintillation detectors begin immediately counting PROTONS from any decay burst of charged particles that occurs within the chamber. A neutron is NOT a CHARGED PARTICLE, however a PROTON is a charged particle which is why the scintillation detectors can count it.

Anthropologists like you are good for wandering around in the weeds & tall grass picking for old bones in the ground, but you trying to explain to this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer how a UCN Proton Trap works is laughable.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
^^^^That is not from the paper I linked, you cretin. Where is it from, shitforbrains?

I repeat, for the terminally stupid;

After the storage the remaining UCN are emptied through the exit shutter (7) and neutron guide (9) into the ***stored neutron detector (10)***. The detector events were recorded time resolved. The detector is a microstrip detector [17] filled with 50 mbar 3He and 1000 mbar CF4 added as buffer gas.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Accuracy in life-time

The latest neutron life-time of 881.5±1.5 s
as the neutrons are travel a distance from generator to the trap probably accounts for ±1.5 s

As what actually is this 881.5±1.5 s, is the next question
because
881.5±1.5 s, it is not mean-life or half-life
because
Ln2.mean-life = half-life, as this neither
because
it is beta-decay which describes 881.5±1.5 s as life-time
so if you Ln2(881.5), in theory would equal half-life
but
Life-time is neither mean-life nor half-life
so
if you are measuring the life-time of this neutron
this means 881.5±1.5 s is the average life-time of this free neutron
You cannot take 881.5±1.5 s and multiply it by Ln2
because
881.5 seconds is when you count the proton, the neutron no longer exists
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Plot all these protons on a graph
will reveal
a large cluster of protons either side of 881.5s tailing of up to 900s
as
you take the average life-time within the large cluster
where the bulk of the protons lie
as
This is the average life-time of the free neutron
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
because
881.5±1.5 s, it is not mean-life or half-life

Yes it is. Stop commenting on things you don't understand. That is the mean lifetime. It is often written as 'neutron lifetime', but refers to the mean lifetime. As shown in the figure I posted that you fail to undestand. They detect neutrons, on an exponential decay curve, from 100 to 3000s. How many times? It is not rocket science. 881.5 x 0.693 = ~ 611s. And that is the half-life.

881.5 seconds is when you count the proton, the neutron no longer exists

They are not counting protons, you idiot.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Plot all these protons on a graph
will reveal
a large cluster of protons either side of 881.5s tailing of up to 900s
as
you take the average life-time within the large cluster
where the bulk of the protons lie
as
This is the average life-time of the free neutron

Complete and utter crap. Give up, you clueless clown. If you were to count the decay products, i.e. protons, the graph would be the inverse of the one I linked. There would be more protons over time as the neutrons decayed. But they aren't counting protons, as anybody with half a brain, who has read the paper, could see. So, I'm guessing you have less than half a brain.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
jimmybobber> @SEU

It's possible to generate an enormous amount of neutrons within one second. This should allay your concern that different ages of the neutrons will affect the outcome of the experiment.

"The IBR-2 reactor with its unique technical approach produces one of the most intense neutron fluxes at the moderator surface among the world's reactors: ~10^16 n/c^2/s, with a power of 1850 MW in pulse."
http://flnph.jinr...es/ibr-2

More to the point
why
has every one kept quite up till today
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
More to the point
why
has every one kept quite up till today

WTF are you talking about now? Write something in plain English, that makes a scientific point. Just for once.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Plot all these protons on a graph
will reveal
a large cluster of protons either side of 881.5s tailing of up to 900s
as
you take the average life-time within the large cluster
where the bulk of the protons lie
as
This is the average life-time of the free neutron

Complete and utter crap. Give up, you clueless clown. If you were to count the decay products, i.e. protons, the graph would be the inverse of the one I linked. There would be more protons over time as the neutrons decayed. But they aren't counting protons, as anybody with half a brain, who has read the paper, could see. So, I'm guessing you have less than half a brain.

There counting protons because the neutron has decayed
if you count neutrons
whats the point
as the neutron has not decayed
You will get a shorter life-time counting live neutrons
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Put X neutrons into a box. Wait some time.
Open box and count remaining neutrons Y.
X - Y neutrons have decayed.
##### jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
There is a method of determining the mean neutron lifetime by proton counting. However, this is not it. That would be the in-beam method. As described here;

Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime by Counting Trapped Protons
Wietfeldt, F. E. et al.
https://www.ncbi....4852842/

This method essentially shoots a beam of neutrons through a trap, in which there are a number of electrodes spread along the length of the trap. At each electrode, the proton number is counted. This is a very short timescale experiment. As you can see,from Fig. 3, the proton detection rate increases over time. As expected. Notice how that slope is the inverse of the one in the storage trap paper.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
There counting protons because the neutron has decayed

They are not counting protons, you illiterate tosser. How many times? Read the f***ing paper. Look at the figures, you halfwit. Why is No. 10 in Fig. 1 labelled 'neutron detector', you clueless areshole?
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Timing decaying neutrons over stepped intervals

100s means including neutrons decayed at 50s
400s means including neutrons decayed at 50s, 100s, 150s, 200s.... to 350s then 400s
in other words neutrons are decaying every second as all are included as though the decayed at 400s
If theses early neutrons are mathematically excluded
Why time this life-time as is could be mathematically calculated
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
100s means including neutrons decayed at 50s
400s means including neutrons decayed at 50s, 100s, 150s, 200s.... to 350s then 400s
in other words neutrons are decaying every second as all are included as though the decayed at 400s
If theses early neutrons are mathematically excluded
Why time this life-time as is could be mathematically calculated

WTF are you on about now, you clown? Neutrons start decaying immediately.. And they keep decaying all the way to 3000s. As expected. And beyond 3000s, if they'd had a longer run. Try to get it through your thick skull. This is not difficult stuff.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
magnetically confined neutrons
jonesdave> This method essentially shoots a beam of neutrons through a trap, in which there are a number of electrodes spread along the length of the trap. At each electrode, the proton number is counted. .

If there firing magnetically confined neutrons at 2m/s down a track for a 1000s
you will need a 2000m track
unless
this is circular track
but then you will need only need one neutron at a time
Where it can circle till it decays to a proton, where there are detectors encircling the wall
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
There counting protons because the neutron has decayed

They are not counting protons, you illiterate tosser

Looks like the neutron detector on your test run was He-3 gas-filled proportional detector. When He-3 absorbs a neutron, the resulting absorption produces a proton & a H-3 ion at the same positive energy level of charge and one or the other of these two charges are picked up & transferred to the scintillating counting device.

Neutrally charged atoms or particles (neutrons) cannot be counted in the He-3 detector system. Look it up & do some reading & knock it off with continuing being the "illiterate tosser" & the HARD OF READING.

Stick to Anthropology, you'll find picking bones out in the tall grass & weeds more DOWN to your level.

##### granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2019
This is better
If there firing magnetically confined neutrons at 2m/s down a track for a 1000s
you will need a 2000m track
unless
this is circular track
but then you will need only need one neutron at a time
Where it can circle till it decays to a proton, where there are detectors encircling the wall

As you can sit with your feet up
Firing a neutron every 15minutes
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
@Benni you said
"Looks like the neutron detector on your test run was He-3 gas-filled proportional detector. When He-3 absorbs a neutron, the resulting absorption produces a proton & a H-3 ion at the same positive energy level of charge and one or the other of these two charges are picked up & transferred to the scintillating counting device."

Those aren't protons from the free neutron decay moron.

You said the protons from the decay were counted. You were wrong.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2019
@Benni you said
"Looks like the neutron detector on your test run was He-3 gas-filled proportional detector. When He-3 absorbs a neutron, the resulting absorption produces a proton & a H-3 ion at the same positive energy level of charge and one or the other of these two charges are picked up & transferred to the scintillating counting device."

Those aren't protons from the free neutron decay moron.
Join your twin out in the tall grass & weeds.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
They are still counting the neutrons left over jackass.
Regardless how the microstrip detector actually functions.

"The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons that are emitted at the instant beta decay occurs. One proton is emitted for every neutron that decays.The reason protons are counted is due to their positive charge & large mass size compared to the other decay byproducts, and by the way, this decay is not counted in half life units."

##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Neutrally charged atoms or particles (neutrons) cannot be counted in the He-3 detector system. Look it up & do some reading & knock it off with continuing being the "illiterate tosser" & the HARD OF READING.

F*ckwit. Still thick as pigsh!t, aren't you? (rhetorical). You are bloody clueless. It is called a neutron detector for a reason, you semi-educated cretin.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2019
Now we know why the silence over neutron generating traps, everyone is scrambling to read up
Except
Benni, the phys.org neutron Supremo
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Join your twin out in the tall grass & weeds.

Says the uneducated tosspot who 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.

Lol. What a thick prick! He's either 12 years old, or mentally retarded. Possibly both.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
Benni, the phys.org neutron Supremo

You mean the uneducated tosspot who knows nothing about nuclear physics? As shown. Or any other kind of science, for that matter? He is a moron.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
I'm actually surprised Benni admits a neutron decays at all. He thinks a proton is an elementary particle. He probably wants to believe a neutron is an elementary particle as well but he can't because it's been proven to decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino.

Since Benni doesn't accept the existence of quarks, this leaves Benni with one conclusion. A neutron is composed of a proton, electron, and an antineutrino and a proton is an elementary particle.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2019
I'm actually surprised Benni admits a neutron decays at all. He thinks a proton is an elementary particle. He probably wants to believe a neutron is an elementary particle as well but he can't because it's been proven to decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino.

Since Benni doesn't accept the existence of quarks, this leaves Benni with one conclusion. A neutron is composed of a proton, electron, and an antineutrino and a proton is an elementary particle.

The main conclusion is that Benni is thick.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2019
@Benni

They used a microstrip detector to detect passing neutrons.

Like this one:
https://www.scien...97002076
says jimmyBooBoo

The Abstract in your link is over 20 years old. May 1998
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2019
jimmybobber> @SEU

It's possible to generate an enormous amount of neutrons within one second. This should allay your concern that different ages of the neutrons will affect the outcome of the experiment.

"The IBR-2 reactor with its unique technical approach produces one of the most intense neutron fluxes at the moderator surface among the world's reactors: ~10^16 n/c^2/s, with a power of 1850 MW in pulse."
http://flnph.jinr...es/ibr-2
says jimmyBooBoo
More to the point
why
has every one kept quite up till today
says granville

@granville
I noticed that too and wondered why it suddenly went quiet - not a leaf was stirring in this physorg phorum. BTW jonesy tells us that protons weren't counted, but protons are one of the particles ejected from the decaying Free Neutron. And being that it is only 1 proton out of 1 Freed Decaying Neutron, one would think that it would make sense to count protons rather than Neutrons. However,
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
@granville
However, their main concern was the duration/timing of the Mean Lifetime of each individual Freed Neutron from the time that it escaped its Nucleus until it had fully decayed - leaving 3 orphans out in the cold cruel world. So that they weren't concerned with the orphans - only with the duration of the Neutron's Mean Lifetime. So little Johnny Proton is ignored. "L"

Then jimmyBooBoo opines, "It's possible to generate an enormous amount of neutrons within one second. This should allay your concern that different ages of the neutrons will affect the outcome of the experiment."

BUT, IF they had been able to generate that enormous amount (40,000) of about-to-decay Freed Neutrons within 1 second, then ALL 40,000 would have decayed at precisely 14.7 minutes (or 14.42) and there wouldn't have been any left to count, jimmy. 40,000 having finished the decay process within 14.7 minutes seems about right and then everyone could go home.
However -

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
@granville
@Benni
@jimmyBobber
However. the claim that even AFTER the 14.7 min duration between generation of 40000 Freed Neutrons and their full decay, that there were many left over IN THE TRAP indicates that the generator was STILL generating more Freed Neutrons into the "glass storage trap", which would be WHY there were still more Freed Neutrons to be counted as they passed from the trap into the counting area. That would mean that, instead of only 40,000 Freed Neutrons generated by the reactor - there were many more that left the reactor and entered the glass storage trap. And since they had only recently been generated, they would all have been younger - which would have accounted for their being counted by the counter as being longer-lived than the first ones to have been counted - their duration time being 14.7 minutes.
-contd-
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
Subsequent Freed Neutrons in the trap would have been in a different group - so that if 40000 were in the first group counted, then the rest were not a part of that original 40,000. They would then have arrived a bit later - a different age group (younger) and counted as though they were part of the original group of 40000 - which is why it was claimed that some Freed Neutrons have a longer Mean Lifetime decay duration than others. The subsequent group(s) were timed/counted by the very same Timer that was NOT set back to Zero to get an accurate decay reading of that newer group.
jimmyBobber - fail
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2019
@jimmybobber
I enjoyed your Russian video of the reactor's fuel rods and how their machine generates whatever they wish to generate - such as Neutrons. Fascinating.

http://flnph.jinr...es/ibr-2
##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Reading about someone's fantasies of being an alien recording device on the science site is ridiculous.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
There has been silence on this neutron far too long

Complete silence on neutron generated timing traps
complete silience on this neutrons life-time
untill today
there are inadequacies in neutron timing traps
there are failings in neutron timing traps
they are open to manipulation of human failings

the neutron generator are open to manipulation
a neutron is detected, by definition an undecayed neutron
or a proton is detected, by definition a decayed neutron
then the neutron trap, because it creates neutrons of its own
but
the final outcome the neutron its self
no one is able to say
this neutrons life-time
so
even as it emits a proton
even though this neutron is no more
no one can admit this neutron emits its proton in 881.5s even as this the accepted neutron life-time
because
strange as it sounds
the reason why
is
This neutron ceases to exist in 881.5s
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
This Neutron emits its Proton in 881.5s

A defining definition
A clear cut definition
An undeniable definition
The definitive life-time definition
The officially accepted life-time definition
14.6917minutes or 14.7minutes
This Neutron emits its Proton in 881.5s
##### jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2019
@Granville

The neutron doesn't emit a proton. It turns into one.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2019
This Neutron turns into a Proton in 881.5s
@Granville
The neutron doesn't emit a proton. It turns into one.

Even better, jimmybobber
A more definitive definition that this neutron ceases to exist in 881.5s
As in 881.5s we have a Proton
This Neutron turns into a Proton in 881.5s
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Thanks, jimmybobber
A defining definition by jimmybobber

This Neutron turns into a Proton in 881.5s
A defining definition
A clear cut definition
An undeniable definition
The definitive life-time definition
The officially accepted life-time definition
14.6917minutes or 14.7minutes
This Neutron turns into a Proton in 881.5s
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
Subsequent Freed Neutrons in the trap would have been in a different group - so that if 40000 were in the first group counted, then the rest were not a part of that original 40,000. They would then have arrived a bit later - a different age group (younger) and counted as though they were part of the original group of 40000 - which is why it was claimed that some Freed Neutrons have a longer Mean Lifetime decay duration than others. The subsequent group(s) were timed/counted by the very same Timer that was NOT set back to Zero to get an accurate decay reading of that newer group.
jimmyBobber - fail

Wrong.
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
This Neutron turns into a Proton in 881.5s

Wrong. Read the paper, and look at the figures, you cretin.
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
40,000 having finished the decay process within 14.7 minutes seems about right and then everyone could go home.

Wrong, you uneducated idiot. That is a mean lifetime. It is why they are still detecting neutrons when they do 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000s runs. As shown in a figure that a ten year old could understand with a little help. The fact that it is beyond your understanding tells us everything we need to know about your level of scientific literacy.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
@Granville

The neutron doesn't emit a proton. It turns into one.
........only a novice like you jimbo would make such a blunderous statement: The mass of the two particles are different which means the two particles cannot morph from one to the other, here read & weep:

protons - mass=938.3 MeV

neutrons - mass= 939.6 MeV

.......and by the way, have you finally comprehended the why UCN Lifetime Measurement apparatus under discussion does not COUNT neutrons & does not have a neutron TRAP but in fact has a PROTON TRAP & counts protons? Probably you don't comprehend.

You make a totally laughable statement like "a neutron becomes a proton" & demand credibility in the face of the plain evidence it is a blatantly false statement. Then subsequent to making this falsifiable claim you embark on a name calling rant.

It's not difficult to understand why you become so easily lost wandering in the tall grass & weeds looking to pick things that don't exist.

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
.......and by the way, have you finally comprehended the why UCN Lifetime Measurement apparatus under discussion does not COUNT neutrons & does not have a neutron TRAP but in fact has a PROTON TRAP & counts protons? Probably you don't comprehend.

##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
JB;
The neutron doesn't emit a proton. It turns into one.

The idiot Benni:
........only a novice like you jimbo would make such a blunderous statement:

Except for the problem that he is right and you are wrong. As usual. Go away you uneducated idiot.
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
.......and by the way, have you finally comprehended the why UCN Lifetime Measurement apparatus under discussion does not COUNT neutrons & does not have a neutron TRAP but in fact has a PROTON TRAP & counts protons? Probably you don't comprehend.

...........a concluding statement by an Anthropologist who believes the 14.7 lifetime of a neutron is subject to a half-life decay rate.

Hey, mister genius Anthropologist, have you by now figured out why application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle cannot apply to a neutron? That it's because the principle can only apply to an atomic mass that has ORBITALS? Maybe you can tell us what the ORBITALS of a neutron are in order for a neutron to take on the characteristics of becoming DEGENERATE.
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
...........a concluding statement by an Anthropologist who believes the 14.7 lifetime of a neutron is subject to a half-life decay rate.

It is ,you f***wit, as the scientific literature has told you. Go tell the people at Los Alamos National Laboratory that they are wrong, you puffed up, ignorant cretin.

##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
Hey, mister genius Anthropologist, have you by now figured out why application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle cannot apply to a neutron? That it's because the principle can only apply to an atomic mass that has ORBITALS?

It applies to all fermions, as the scientific literature tells you, moron. Piss off, Mr. toilet cleaner.

##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Hey, mister genius Anthropologist, have you by now figured out why application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle cannot apply to a neutron? That it's because the principle can only apply to an atomic mass that has ORBITALS?

It applies to all fermions, as the scientific literature tells you, moron. Piss off, Mr. toilet cleaner.
......they do not have ORBITAL shells, therefore cannot DEGENERATE.
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
......they do not have ORBITAL shells, therefore cannot DEGENERATE.

WTF are you talking about, you clueless clown? Degeneracy applies to ALL fermions, you cretin.

Read this, and educate yourself. If that is possible;

DEGENERATE FERMION SYSTEMS
M.I.T.
http://web.mit.ed...pped.pdf

It has nothing to do with orbitals, you cretin. It is to do with their quantum state.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
This Neutron emits a Proton in 881.5s

This neutron is more massive than the proton
This neutron
is
1.675x10-27kg
939.565MeV
This proton
is
1.673x10-37kg
938.272MeV
This electron
is
9.11x10-31kg
0.511MeV
This neutrino
is
0.120 eV
As looking at this again, the neutron does not turn into a proton
As it could be equally said to turn into an electron and neutrino which it patently does not
More massive nucleons loss energy by emitting particles
This neutrons energy is divided between a proton, electron and neutrino
A proton is emitted at velocity, as are an electron and neutrino
so
This Neutron emits a Proton at velocity in 881.5s, as all the neutrons energy is now gone, this neutron is no more
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
This Neutron emits a Proton at velocity in 881.5s, as all the neutrons energy is now gone, this neutron is no more

Wrong, idiot. As proven. Piss off and find something at your level. Astrology, perhaps?

##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
It has nothing to do with orbitals It is to do with their quantum state.
....Pauli Exclusion is ONLY about orbitals, anything without ORBITALS cannot degenerate. Degenerate fermions do not exist because they do not have an ORBITAL SHELL structure that can be made degenerate, not to even mention a free unbound neutron known not to have an orbital shell structure.........so much for the vaunted ETERNAL NEUTRON that never decays, right mister Anthropologist & never denying being so?
##### jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Right, for the hard of thinking idiots; a free neutron ***decays into**** a proton. This decay involves the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino. This is where the extra mass of the neutron is carried off.

http://hyperphysi...ton.html
##### jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
.Pauli Exclusion is ONLY about orbitals, anything without ORBITALS cannot degenerate.

No, it is not, you blind f***wit. Read the papers, you cretin. It is about the quantum state of a spin-1/2 fermion. You are as thick as pigsh!t. MIT pdf too much for your limited understanding, was it toilet-boy? Tosser. Here, maybe the Wiki explanation is within your ability to understand (unlikely);

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Anthropologist & never denying being so?

I have repeatedly denied it you lying piece of shit. F*** off, janitor-boy. You are a mentally retarded, scientifically illiterate, D-K suffering shithouse.
##### jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Maybe Georgia State University know what they're talking about;

Neutron degeneracy is a stellar application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as is electron degeneracy. No two neutrons can occupy identical states, even under the pressure of a collapsing star of several solar masses.

http://hyperphysi....html#c3
##### granville583762
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2019
The Pauli Exclusion Principle is an elementary particle

Is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions with half-integer spin, cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously
A Fermion is an elementary particle, as the electron, or a composite particle, as the proton
Realy, it can be a composite particle, such as the proton
before beta-decay the proton, electron and neutrino are said to not exist meaning the neutron is not a composite particle
as also by definition a proton is not a composite particle
an electron is an elementary particle
a proton is also an elementary particle
as both electron and proton have half-integer spin
until the proton and electron are broken apart into smaller constituent parts
the proton and electron are elementary particles
which means
The proton is a Fermion, because it is an elementary particle
##### jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
The proton is a Fermion, because it is an elementary particle

And a neutron is a fermion, shitforbrains.

A fermion is any particle that has an odd half-integer (like 1/2, 3/2, and so forth) spin. Quarks and leptons, as well as most composite particles, like protons and neutrons, are fermions.

http://www.partic...bos.html
##### humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2019
The Pauli Exclusion Principle is an elementary particle
granville

What on earth does that bit of gibberish supposed to mean?
How can a 'principle' equate with 'particle' or, more specifically, 'Pauli exclusion principle' equate with 'elementary particle'?
Looking up the definitions over the net:

Principle: a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.

Pauli exclusion principle: the principle that two or more identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously.

Particle: a minute portion of matter.

Elementary particle: a subatomic particle with no sub structure thus not composed of other particles.

How or in what sense the first or second above can 'be' the third or forth above? That makes no sense.

A Fermion is an elementary particle,

So an elementary particle is a 'principle'? No, because that makes no sense. See definitions above.
##### granville583762
3.1 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
If this Strains those Grey Cells

You have to realise
as The Pauli Exclusion Principle is an elementary particle
as an elementary particle is a Fermion
this
Is
The Scattered Bunch of Flowers
you cannot have a scattered bunch of flowers, by definition, it is no longer a bunch of flowers
an elementary particle by definition cannot be broken apart into elementary particles
a particle composed of elementary particle is no longer related to a Fermion as an elementary particle
because
A collection of elementary particles is not an elementary particle, just as a scattered bunch of flowers is no longer a bunch of flowers

if you follow this strange way of thinking
Concerning Elementary Particles
as oxygen, steel, lead are all composed of elementary particles
this blurs the definitions of matter
because an atom of oxygen is now an elementary particle
taken to its logical conclusion
a
Human being is now an elementary particle
##### granville583762
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Exactly humy
humy> Elementary particle: a subatomic particle with no sub structure thus not composed of other particles

Enrico Fermi, A Fermion is an elementary particle, such as the electron, or a composite particle, such as the proton
What Enrico Fermi is saying, A Fermion is an elementary particle, as he is also saying a proton is composed of elementary particles, as he is looking at it as an elementary particle
so in his mind's eye
he
is looking at it this proton as an elementary particle
as now, as he sees it as an elementary particle
he is applying
All the attributes of The Pauli Exclusion Principle

Now humy, can you not detect Enrico Fermi's double speak
While he says a proton is a composite particle composed of elementary particles
He is looking at it the proton as an elementary particle
and
Consequently applying The Pauli Exclusion Principle
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
Pauli's Exclusion Principle states in an atom no two electrons have the same 4 quantum numbers
An orbital contains a maximum of two electrons the electrons have opposing spins
Pauli Exclusion is ONLY about orbitals, anything without ORBITALS cannot degenerate Degenerate fermions do not exist because they do not have an ORBITAL SHELL structure that can be made degenerate not to even mention a free unbound neutron known not to have an orbital shell structure so much for the vaunted ETERNAL NEUTRON that never decays, right mister Anthropologist & never denying being so

The general consensus is the neutron, proton, electron are compressed to such an extent
any talk of orbital's is completely out the question
being their compressed into a neutron
so as we talk nonsense
a neutron with orbital's
compressed to a hairs breadth pressure of a Hole
A neutron with orbital's is like a visible event horizon, Impossible
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2019
This is the human element Benni
Enrico Fermi's is like everyone else
he has to communicate his ideas in a logical manner
that do not make it seem as if he is having his cake and eating it
if Enrico Fermi's wanted to include composite particles because he theorised they were composed of elementary particles such as the theorised quarks
he should not have included composite particles
because
he was not applying The Pauli Exclusion Principle to the composite particle, the proton
he was applying The Pauli Exclusion Principle to the internal composite particles
with the result
emerged Enrico Fermi's double speak
because
although the proton is not an elementary particle as a composite particle
he was treating the proton as a elementary particle
he just did not want to say publicly
as one layer of complexity adds to the previous layers of complexity
as everyone deals with the confusion
While not wanting to admit to confusion
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
40,000 having finished the decay process within 14.7 minutes seems about right and then everyone...

Wrong, you uneducated idiot. That is a mean lifetime. It is why they are still detecting neutrons when they do 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000s runs. As shown in a figure that a ten year old could understand with a little help. The fact that it is beyond your understanding tells us everything we need to know about your level of scientific literacy.
says jonesy

Are you stupid or worse?
When or if they do 1000, 1300, 2000 or 3000 RUNS or sequences they STILL must generate MORE Freed Neutrons. If they don't - then they will be counting the same ones again - the ones that had been counted already. The initial 40,000 Freed Neutrons had already decayed and ejected, emitted or turned into a proton - whatever - which means that they cannot be counted again. Do you seriously think that the count can continue without more Neutrons being generated into the trap first?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
It is the "Mean Lifetime" of the individual Freed Neutron as soon as it has emerged from its nucleus until its decay is complete (duration) that is the question here. From that moment that it was generated from the reactor into the glass storage trap - the Mean Lifetime if ALL 40000 had been generated simultaneously and it was already KNOWN that 40,000 had been generated to examine how long it would take for ALL 40000 to decay - there would not have been any change/discrepancy amongst those 40,000 as the duration of their decay - both as a group and individually - would not have varied in the time/duration of the decay. IOW - 14.7 minutes = 881.5 Seconds.
No matter how many more RUNS they did - the FIRST RUN had finished decaying in 14.7 minutes. And in order to get a TRUE reading for subsequent RUNS, they would have generated MORE Neutrons and set the Timer back to Zero - IF they wanted a true reading/count.
The COUNTER only gives a reading of how many passed by.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2019
-contd-
If the first batch of 40,000 Freed Neutrons were counted individually as though in a long line at a movie theatre, then that would have accounted for leftovers at the end of the line, whose decay time would SEEM to have lasted well over 14.7 minutes - perhaps lasting hours - which would have been a false reading if each individual Freed Neutron had been generated into the trap "one-at-a-time". That would indicate that they did NOT generate all 40,000 at the very same second. If that was their method of counting how many Neutrons had passed the counter, then the very first generated Neutrons to be counted were the most accurate reading.
To count them one-by-one until all were gone - no matter how many RUNS - the last one to be counted would have been the youngest, and therefore would have been counted by the Timer/counter to be the LONGEST to decay - especially if the Timer hadn't been reset to Zero first to count and time the decay of the last one.

##### observicist
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 28, 2019
SEU, sorry I didn't reply sooner -- I was observing other stuff.

It doesn't matter how "old" or how "young" the neutrons are when the timer begins -- you will see the same exponential decay curve and half-life.

Put 40k free neutrons in the trap and start your timer. Make your measurement. Take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in the second run. If you're still not convinced, take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in run number three. Do this until the cows come home, never adding any additional neutrons, and you'll always get the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life (with fewer neutrons in each run, of course).

Neutrons don't "remember" how old they are.

That's how exponential decay and half-life works.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
Observicist, you do not get it do you

881.5 seconds is the average neutron life-time
after
881.5 seconds from emerging out the neutron generator
this neutron emits a proton
if
you take this neutron out the trap after 400 seconds
then
put it in a second trap, in 481.5 seconds this neutron emits a proton
Minus the time it took transferring this neutron from one trap to the next trap
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
881.5 seconds is the average neutron life-time
after
881.5 seconds from emerging out the neutron generator
this neutron emits a proton
if
you take this neutron out the trap after 400 seconds
then
put it in a second trap, in 481.5 seconds this neutron emits a proton
Minus the time it took transferring this neutron from one trap to the next trap

Wrong, you idiot. As has been proven multiple times in the lab. And you have been linked to the papers, and the figures. Stop talking crap.

##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
You have to realise
as The Pauli Exclusion Principle is an elementary particle
as an elementary particle is a Fermion

Wrong, idiot. As pointed out.

Composite fermions

Examples include the following:

A baryon, such as the proton or neutron, contains three fermionic quarks and thus it is a fermion.

https://en.wikipe.../Fermion

##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2019
It doesn't matter how "old" or how "young" the neutrons are when the timer begins -- you will see the same exponential decay curve and half-life.

>observ.....

One hundred percent false, attempting to explain Beta Particle Decay in the same way jonesy the Anthropologist does it is beyond stupid, and I'm telling you from the standpoint of MYSELF 50% of whose job description is the operation & oversight of a Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy Lab facility that uses much of the same kind of apparatus setup that is used in measuring neutron lifetime via Beta Particle Decay.

Every neutron that becomes UNBOUND from a NUCLEUS damn good & well knows how old or young it is, this because the INSTANT it becomes UNBOUND the CLOCK starts a 14.7 minute irreversible countdown.

You're just another jonesy neophyte trying to be semantically clever using the phrase, "exponential decay curve and half-life" to make believe the neutron's 14.7 minute beta decay rate isn't real.
##### jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
That's how exponential decay and half-life works.

Indeed. And there is more than one method for measuring the mean lifetime. The most recent was done at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The paper is paywalled, but what the hell;

Measurement of the neutron lifetime using a magneto-gravitational trap and in situ detection
Pattie, Jr., R. W. et al.
http://sci-hub.tw....aan8895

Again, they use multiple runs of varying times;

The neutrons were stored for times typically ranging from 10 to 1400 s, chosen to optimize
statistical reach in a given experimental running time while still permitting systematic studies.

Fig. 3 again shows that lovely exponential decay curve up to ~ 1600s.
##### Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
@Benni proposes weird new psychotic fairy tale properties for neutrons.

How do they "know," @Benni? Do the little neutronies have little watches they check?
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
>observ,

If you're still not convinced, take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in run number three.

.....and the reason you won't measure any Beta Particle Decay beyond 14.7 minutes by putting then in another trap is because the "undecayed neutrons" you reference DO NOT STOP decaying just because the first measurement run ceased, they continue their irreversible countdown to 14.7 minutes.

If you wait beyond 14.7 minutes to get those "undecayed neutrons" into the Proton Trap for another measuremenr, the only decay that the scintillation detectors will measure is BACKGROUND RADIATION & I seriously doubt if you even know what that is.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2019
Every neutron that becomes UNBOUND from a NUCLEUS damn good & well knows how old or young it is, this because the INSTANT it becomes UNBOUND the CLOCK starts a 14.7 minute irreversible countdown.

Wrong, as proven in multiple lab experiments, you cretin. You are just too thick to understand the papers, you uneducated oaf.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2019
BACKGROUND RADIATION & I seriously doubt if you even know what that is.

Wrong, shitforbrains. Background radiation does not fall on an exponential decay curve, you gormless prat. Get an education, poser.
##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
What an idiot. Now @Benni has little neutronies with brains that can tell time.
##### Da Schneib
2.4 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
What, no response for that, @Benni?

Gonna try to make up a new lie?

How exactly does this miniature neutronie timer work? Because every property a neutron has stems from quantum physics. How do these teeny tiny watches and brains work, @Benni?
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2019
Now @Benni has little neutronies with brains that can tell time.
.......it's an Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics & YOU can't falsify the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate by invoking the semantics of an inapplicable exponential decay curve that has absolutely NOTHING to do with measuring the LIFETIME decay rate of an unbound neutron.

##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
.......it's an Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics & YOU can't falsify the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate by invoking the semantics of an inapplicable exponential decay curve that has absolutely NOTHING to do with measuring the LIFETIME decay rate of an unbound neutron.

Wrong. As proven. Go tell the people at Los Alamos that they are frauds, you spineless creep.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
@Benni, you have no explanation except for little neutronies with brains and teeny tiny watches.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
Here's the immutable law of physics: every moment, there is a chance a down might decay into an up. This chance is enough to make half of the neutrons decay after 14.7 minutes, just like there's a chance every time you throw the dice you might make a six. It's nothing more than that, and nothing more is required. No little neutronies with brains, no teeny tiny watches.

You are an idiot.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
This law is true for everything from chemical reactions to the decay of top quarks. In fact, it's even true in biology.

If you were right any neutron trap would explode after 14.7 minutes when all the neutrons decayed at the same time.

This is either silliness or psychotic delusion.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
Wikipedia> Radium-226, which has a half-life of 1600 years and decays into radon gas
This statement from Wikipedia, when discussing Radium-226 a metal where its atoms are undergoing decay
This metals atom are decaying in a random fashion over 1600years
as you measure the Radium-226 mass, its atoms are in different stages of decay over 1600 years
you get radioactive decay in a random fashion
where this random fashion reveals itself as exponential
where its half-life is 1600 years where 10kg = 5kg
Did anyone notice anything unusual – Only half-life is discussed
Create 10kg of neutrons in one second
put these 10kg of free neutrons in a trap in that one second
unlike Radium-226 where decaying atoms goes back over 1600 years
these neutrons are not emitting a proton randomly
As they are not in the atom, the process of emitting a proton begins on creation in the neutron generator
Where these protons are emitted in these neutrons life time, 881.5 seconds
##### jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
Where these protons are emitted in these neutrons life time, 881.5 seconds

Jesus Christ! How many times? That is the mean lifetime, you arse. Stop talking crap and read the papers, you ignorant fool.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
And it is not 'emitting' a proton, dummy. It decays into a proton, due to the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino. I really wish you people would stop commenting on subjects that are quite obviously beyond you.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds
"Wikipedia> For the free neutron, the decay energy for this process, based on the rest masses of the neutron, proton and electron, is 0.782343 MeV
That is the difference between the rest mass of the neutron and the sum of the rest masses of the products. That difference has to be carried away as kinetic energy"
The mass energy difference is carried away in kinetic energy of the proton and electron
This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds, and then all the energy is used up
##### jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds, and then all the energy is used up

Wrong, tosspot. The energy is mostly carried away by the electron antineutrino. Learn to read, dickhead.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2019
http://hyperphysi...ton.html

Scroll down to the last piece - 'Decay of the Neutron'. Read and learn. Something you ought to have done before sticking your uneducated nose into things you don't understand.
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
It matters not the speed of velocity
This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds
"Wikipedia> For the free neutron, the decay energy for this process, based on the rest masses of the neutron, proton and electron, is 0.782343 MeV
That is the difference between the rest mass of the neutron and the sum of the rest masses of the products. That difference has to be carried away as kinetic energy"
The mass energy difference is carried away in kinetic energy of the proton and electron
This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds, and then all the energy is used up

This neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5 seconds
as
a mm/s is velocity
as this proton moving, is all that counts
This proton in 881.5 seconds is emitted at velocity
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2019
doesn't matter how "old" or how "young" the neutrons are when the timer begins -- you will see the same exponential decay curve and half-life.

Put 40k free neutrons in the trap and start your timer. Make your measurement. Take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in the second run. If you're still not convinced, take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in run number three. Do this until the cows come home, never adding any additional neutrons, and you'll always get the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life (with fewer neutrons in each run, of course).

Neutrons don't "remember" how old they are.

That's how exponential decay and half-life works.
says observicist

Exactly HOW MANY "GAS STORAGE TRAPS" are being used in this test?

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2019
-contd-
jonesy seems to be saying that the Freed Neutron DECAYS INTO a proton after the Electron and its antineutrino are emitted FROM the Freed Neutron that had decayed already at 14.7 minutes at the end of its lifetime. So, it appears that jonesy is saying that the Neutron has TRANSITIONED or TRANSMUTED itself into a Proton where the former Neutron's appearance is no longer that of a Neutron - but has turned into a Proton. Spooky. And is the decay itself dependent on the Electron and its antineutrino leaving the Neutron FIRST so that the Neutron may change itself into a Proton?
OR do the Electron and its antineutrino leave the Freed Neutron either DURING or AFTER or BEFORE the decay of the Neutron is complete? When does this exodus happen? And when does the Neutron's transition into a Proton happen? In how many seconds?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2019
-contd-
So what is referred to as a DECAY - is actually NOT an actual decay - but is a transmutation from a Neutron (Freed) into a totally different entity - a PROTON - once the exodus had occurred - which sounds like a scifi plot for a movie. Sort of like Superman changing out of his 'mild-mannered reporter' clothes into his Superman tights.
But as I had said earlier:

"If the first batch of 40,000 Freed Neutrons were counted individually as though in a long line at a movie theatre, then that would have accounted for leftovers at the end of the line, whose decay time would SEEM to have lasted well over 14.7 minutes - perhaps lasting hours - which would have been a false reading if each individual Freed Neutron had been generated into the trap "one-at-a-time". That would indicate that they did NOT generate all 40,000 at the very same second."

##### Da Schneib
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2019
The "lifetime" of humans is 70 years. Do they all die then?

Duh ummm.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2019
-contd-
The timing of the generation of the Freed Neutrons from the reactor into the 'glass storage trap' and the number that were generated AT THE SAME TIME seems to be crucial to achieving an accurate count of, say, 40k Freed Neutrons and the timing of the exact second in which they all began to decay until their decay/transmutation was complete. They should ALL HAVE COMPLETED their transmutation into Protons at the same time - all 40k.
If any were actually left, then it is possible that those Neutrons were still WITHIN their Nucleus and hadn't come into the trap as Freed Neutrons - which, if that was the case, then the Timer was timing the decay-time of Neutrons that were still in their nucleus - which would have extended each one''s "Mean/Average Lifetime" far longer than the first group that decayed/transmuted at 14.7 minutes.
How was it possible to tell exactly WHEN each Neutron had left its nucleus to be placed into the GST?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2019
@jonesy
Thanks for providing your sci hub link to the Los Alamos experiment. Very informative.
##### jimmybobber
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
deleted post. too sarcastic.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2019
deleted post. too sarcastic.

Then why bother mentioning it? Are you taking lessons from jonesy? or Da Pussyman?
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
What is a Da Pussyman?
##### jimmybobber
1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2019
Double post removed.
##### jimmybobber
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
@SEU
I don't think you can just delete post here so I thought I'd explain why I deleted it. Hate on guy man dude.
##### Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2019
>Egg

How was it possible to tell exactly WHEN each Neutron had left its nucleus to be placed into the GST?

A helium filled detector at the reactor core records the neutron stream within nano-seconds of the free neutrons becoming unbound from the nucleus, this device is not part of the scintllation detection devices of Proton Trap Apparatus.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
What is a Da Pussyman?
says jimmyBooBoo

Why, you should have known by now that Da Pussyman is your buddy, Da Schneibo. Didn't you recognise all the signs of a pussyman in his comments, jimmyBoo? He's been trolling me in many many physorg phorums. If you don't agree with Da Schnitzermann, you will be trolled too. He also trolls Benni and RealityCheck and....and...
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2019
@jimmybobber

Da Schneib3.4 / 5 (5) 14 hours ago
What an idiot. Now @Benni has little neutronies with brains that can tell time.

See jimmy? What did I tell you?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2019
>Egg

How was it possible to tell exactly WHEN each Neutron had left its nucleus to be placed into the GST?

A helium filled detector at the reactor core records the neutron stream within nano-seconds of the free neutrons becoming unbound from the nucleus, this device is not part of the scintllation detection devices of Proton Trap Apparatus.
says Benni

OK and thanks Benni. By the way - is the reactor the same one or similar to, that is in the video that jimmybobber provided for us - the Russian video of the IBR-2 pulse reactor (in English)?

http://flnph.jinr...es/ibr-2

I am wondering how many Freed Neutrons can the reactor's Neutron generator generate and store within any given time period before their decay process commences.
##### observicist
3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2019
SEU, Benni -- put a whole bunch of free neutrons in a tank. Wait a random amount of time, anywhere from a picosecond to a Terayear -- it doesn't matter. Then, start your timer. However many free neutrons are still in the tank the instant you start your timer will exhibit exponential decay with a mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes and a half-life of (ln 2)(14.7 minutes) from the instant you start your timer. Of course, if you wait a Terayear to start your timer, all of 'em will probably be gone (there probably won't be much of anything left except some really old red dwarf stars and black holes, if that), but any free neutrons that are still there will exhibit exponential decay with a mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes and a half-life of (ln 2)(14.7 minutes) from the instant you start your timer.

That's how exponential decay and half-life work.
##### Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@observer, well told but I doubt they will get it. It's rather like trying to explain half-life to a dog, as I have said before.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
@observicist
Thanks for the answer. But since the Freed Neutrons are going to decay/transmutate into protons at the end of 14.7 minutes - why is the 'half-life' needed at all? The half-life of any Freed Neutron - even if that Neutron will not decay for a "terayear" (which I don't think it is possible) seems to me to be irrelevant since it is not at THAT point of half-life that the transition into a Proton begins. So why is half-life relevant? Do they use the half-life as a starting point to measure the decay timing of another group of Freed Neutrons? Even the term, "half-life" seems to be misnamed when it isn't exactly one-half of 14.7 minutes. A half pound of praties must be exactly half of a full pound. No more, no less.
But what is the evidence that the Neutron has become freed from its Nucleus? Is there something similar to a "photo-finish" detector and where is it at?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
Googled Neutron - decay - time and got this:

How do neutrons decay into protons?
In beta minus (β−) decay, a neutron is converted to a proton, and the process creates an electron and an electron antineutrino; while in beta plus (β+) decay, a proton is converted to a neutron and the process creates a positron and an electron neutrino. β+ decay is also known as positron emission.
Beta decay - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wiki...ta_decay

What does a neutron decay into?
Protons have not been observed to decay, but neutrons decay all the time. The lifetime of a neutron all by itself is about 886 seconds. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron-type antineutrino.
Q & A: Proton and Neutron decay | Department of Physics ...
https://van.physi...?id=1207
##### Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
And there's the dog.
##### observicist
3 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2019
Da Schneib -- thanks. It couldn't come from a more highly respected person.

I didn't figure they would understand, but I had to give it one more try, as I'm the eternal optimist.

Nevertheless, what they say where I'm from is never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
@observicist
Thanks for revealing your true self. And Da Pussyman is far from being a "more highly respected person". So you are both cut from the same cloth, yes? I suppose that the user name "observicist" is actually just another sock poopie belonging to Da Scheide aka Da Pussyman.
How deceitful!!
Too bad - and just when the phorum was getting interesting.
##### observicist
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2019
SEU -- I am my own person, and no one's follower. I simply respect Da Schneib's knowledge, as I've verified it on many occasions.

Da Schneib has nothing to do with my posts; there has been no deceit. Furthermore, I have not insulted you, personally; please do not insult me by claiming I'm a "sock puppet" and being "deceitful" -- that shows your true colors, unless you apologize.

This is the first time I've ever joined in, although I've been observing for years; however, I could not simply stand by and observe this one, given some of the nonsense I saw being posted.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
Observicist, you do not get it do you
Observicist> SEU -- I am my own person, and no one's follower. I simply respect Da Schneib's knowledge, as I've verified it on many occasions.
Da Schneib has nothing to do with my posts; there has been no deceit. Furthermore, I have not insulted you, personally; please do not insult me by claiming I'm a "sock puppet" and being "deceitful" -- that shows your true colours, unless you apologize.
This is the first time I've ever joined in, although I've been observing for years; however, I could not simply stand by and observe this one, given some of the nonsense I saw being posted.

So, you have been observing us
and
picking up the traits of the traits of the observed
before
emerging into this phys.org virtual reality
attracting the attention of independent observers
so
now Observicist, you have had to come to this virtual world
to
Explain that you are an independent observer
##### Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
@granny and @SEU seem to have shown up at the same time.

Just sayin'.
##### SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2019
@observicist
This is the first time I've ever joined in, although I've been observing for years; however, I could not simply stand by and observe this one, given some of the nonsense I saw being posted
Well said, sir!

As you will have observed over the years, it's topics like black holes which bring the termites out of the walls, all waving their antennae in a futile attempt to communicate their termite "take" on things. And having precisely zero effect on the march of science.
I simply respect Da Schneib's knowledge, as I've verified it on many occasions
I'm with you there: @DS has amply and very clearly shown his worth, his scientific credentials, and his extensive knowledge of things scientific, here on so many occasions.

That the haters and science illiterates on here don't get it is a source of constant amusement, while being at the same time a source of irritation and downright embarassment at the foolishness and ignorance of so many.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
Ignorance is no fault except perhaps in failure of curiosity, and it's easily fixed, if the sufferer will only pay attention. Sadly many do not.

Stupidity, however, and foolishness, are incurable. They generally follow from politics, religion, and/or psychosis.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2019
Thanks for the answer. But since the Freed Neutrons are going to decay/transmutate into protons at the end of 14.7 minutes - why is the 'half-life' needed at all?

For the millionth time, they will not all decay in 14.7 minutes. As numerous papers I have linked will show you. Try reading and, more importantly, understanding them. Anything that beta-decays will have a mean lifetime and a half-life. Fact. Try looking up 'exponential decay' and the natural log of 2, and why it is used to convert mean lifetimes into half-lives. You have been fooled by the idiots Benni and Granville into believing their idiotic nonsense about all free neutrons decaying precisely at 14.7 minutes. That is complete nonsense, and there is plenty in the scientific literature to show that it is nonsense. It is merely the deranged beliefs of a couple of scientifically illiterate clowns.

##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
@jonesy
Thanks for providing your sci hub link to the Los Alamos experiment. Very informative.

No problem. Here is more from LANL;

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Moreover, how long neutrons survive inside a nucleus before decaying similarly depends on the nucleus in question. Iron-59 has a half-life of more than six weeks, while iron-63, with four more neutrons, lasts only six seconds. ***But for a free neutron, unattached to any atom, it's always about ten minutes***.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
I will point out again that if they all decay in 14.7 minutes any experiment designed to contain them would explode with the force of a nuclear weapon.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
Interesting, an alternative approach to fusion
I will point out again that if they all decay in 14.7 minutes any experiment designed to contain them would explode with the force of a nuclear weapon.

Now Da Schneib, your exploring the possibilities
when this neutron emits its products of decay in 881.5 seconds
there is a surplus of energy
are you doing the calculations of energy of production
in
Relation to energy emitted, submit your thesis, an alternative approach to fusion
##### Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@granny reveals its foolishness yet again. That wouldn't be either fission or fusion. It's something that obviously doesn't exist, or there'd be a bunch of scientists who got blown up.

On Earth.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
Da Schneib, an alternative approach to fusion
Da Schneib> @granny reveals its foolishness yet again. That wouldn't be either fission or fusion. It's something that obviously doesn't exist, or there'd be a bunch of scientists who got blown up.
On Earth.

Da Schneib> I will point out again that if they all decay in 14.7 minutes any experiment designed to contain them would explode with the force of a nuclear weapon.

Da Schneib, your idea is unique
as you are disowning your idea
when the royalties come rolling in
you will not be miffed
When those billions of \$ pass you by
##### Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
If it worked that way it would already have been discovered. Explosively.
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
Da Schneib, your idea is unique

No, it was not an idea - it was an explanation of why your idiocy is wrong. 40 000 x ~ 0.8 MeV = ~ 30 GeV. All being unleashed at the same instant. I think we might have noticed that.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
I will point out again that if they all decay in 14.7 minutes any experiment designed to contain them would explode with the force of a nuclear weapon.

Now Da Schneib, your exploring the possibilities
when this neutron emits its products of decay in 881.5 seconds
there is a surplus of energy
are you doing the calculations of energy of production
in
Relation to energy emitted, submit your thesis, an alternative approach to fusion

......you bet granDy, his imagination runs wild on stuff like this because he's a believer in perpetual motion machines like all the rest of the Pop-Cosmology clan living here, jonesy, observ, skyhigh, etc.

To begin with, 40k neutrons is a paltry number, but look who the ones are criticizing nuclear physicists forfabricating hardware that are bombs, yet we've never heard of a single incident of measuring the lifetime decay rate of a neutron has having blown up in anyone's face.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
Look at you twisting and turning @Benni.

Of course they haven't blown up, they don't do what you say they do.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2019
......you bet granDy, his imagination runs wild on stuff like this because he's a believer in perpetual motion machines like all the rest of the Pop-Cosmology clan living here, jonesy, observ, skyhigh, etc.

To begin with, 40k neutrons is a paltry number, but look who the ones are criticizing nuclear physicists forfabricating hardware that are bombs, yet we've never heard of a single incident of measuring the lifetime decay rate of a neutron has having blown up in anyone's face.

And the retard still doesn't get it.
##### Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
Look at you twisting and turning @Benni.

Of course they haven't blown up, they don't do what you say they do.
.........no, it's just the reverse, these nuclear physicists don't do what YOU say.

They know they are not making bombs & YOU can't figure out why they know what you don't. As for me, it's easy to figure out why jonesy the Anthropologist & schneibo a former old technology Computer Programmer can't figure this out.......zero educational skills in Nuclear Physics, but that's the culture of Pop-Cosmology on parade here.
##### Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
I didn't say what they do.

You did.

You like like a rug, @Benni.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2019
zero educational skills in Nuclear Physics.

Lol. Says the idiot that is dissing every single scientist, and every single paper produced on neutron lifetime measurement! You are an idiot, and have no evidence to back up your puerile beliefs, and are ignoring a shed load showing it to be nonsense. In short, you are a clueless cretin.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2019
Moreover, how long neutrons survive inside a nucleus before decaying similarly depends on the nucleus in question. Iron-59 has a half-life of more than six weeks, while iron-63, with four more neutrons, lasts only six seconds. ***But for a free neutron, unattached to any atom, it's always about ten minutes***.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Now, who do we believe? Los Alamos National Laboratory, or the clueless, lying, scientifically illiterate idiot Benni? I know where my money is.
##### jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2019
As for me, it's easy to figure out.....

Lol. Quite obviously it isn't, because you haven't got a clue, and not a single scientist is agreeing with your braindead claims. You are a retarded loon on a comments section, who knows sod all about any sort of science. Go away, D-K boy, you are a waste of space.
##### SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that @Benni is not actually a human being - how COULD a real person be so bone-crushingly stupid? - but rather some kind of internet bot run by university students of social psychology researching the ways in which internet communications alter our ways of interacting with others.

How they must laugh when we try, time and time again, to show the infinitely dense @Benni the error of "his" ways!

O tempora, o mores!
##### observicist
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2019
SkyLight -- thank you. Much appreciated, sir!

All I wanted to do was to try to explain exponential decay and half-life without insulting anyone. That people took offense is, I hope, not my doing.

I absolutely love the exponential distribution -- it describes the real world perfectly in so many ways, as do the trigonometric functions and natural logarithms. Understanding them is absolutely necessary for any physicist and chemist.

Thank you again for your comment.
##### SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
That people took offense is, I hope, not my doing.
There's no need to feel bad about it - too many here, unfortunately, take offense when presented with truths which do not agree with their fantasies and delusions. It's just par for the course...
##### observicist
3 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2019
granville583762 -- as you went to the trouble of rendering part of your comment to me into verse, I decided I should honor that by going to the same trouble.

------------------------------

No Death of a Neutron
(or a Salesman)

observations of conversations
thus
observations of misapprehensions
of
physical laws
and
unwarranted accusations
in sometimes nonsensical text
thus
observations
of
necessities of corrections
without
insults and mean accusations
merely the means
to
mean what must needs be said
to
explain small
nibbles
of a bit of a very
tiny
event in the universe
called the decay
without death
of a
neutron
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
^^^^Lol. Bravo that man!
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
As we are observing Observicist, Observicist observes the observers

No Death of Neutron or Salesman
observation of conversation
thus observation of misapprehension
of physical laws
in sometimes, nonsensical text
observation of necessity of correction
without insult and mean accusation
merely means to mean what must need be said
to explain small nibbles of a very tiny event in this universe called the decay
Without the death of this neutron

Welcome to this phys.org virtual reality, Observicist

Calling occupants of interplanetary space we are observing you
https://www.youtu...V0EoJJY8
##### Phyllis Harmonic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@ observicist

SEU wrote: I suppose that the user name "observicist" is actually just another sock poopie belonging to Da Scheide aka Da Pussyman.

SEU accused me of the same thing after I pointed out its inanity in a previous post. It has a hard time with anyone agreeing with the smart, well-educated, and scientifically grounded people posting here.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
@jonesy
Thanks for providing your sci hub link to the Los Alamos experiment. Very informative.

No problem. Here is more from LANL;

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Moreover, how long neutrons survive inside a nucleus before decaying similarly depends on the nucleus in question. Iron-59 has a half-life of more than six weeks, while iron-63, with four more neutrons, lasts only six seconds. ***But for a free neutron, unattached to any atom, it's always about ten minutes***.
says jonesy

At this point, I am not interested in half-life whether 10.3 min or 10 hours. After watching jimmy bobber's Russian video of the components of the reactor, I see that when the "reactor" is turned around - the Neutrons are shot out randomly - not all at the same exact second. This means that each Neutron - whether Free or still enclosed in nucleus - is of varying age.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
DS, and The nuclear explosive energy of 40,000 neutrons at 881.5 seconds

40,000 neutrons = 6.7x10-23kg = 31,294MeV surplus energy = 5.0X10-12 Joules
Benni, we all knew DS has toed the line that neutrons decayed in 881.5 seconds
little did we realise the extent of DS acceptance of emitting a proton in 881.5 seconds
DS is so besotted by this instant decay that he believes they decay instantly in a nuclear explosion
this neutron is infectious
has morphed from half a neutron
to emitting protons
to instant decay, that makes a nuclear explosion look like a damp squid
that only requires
40,000 neutrons
we thought this neutron was done
It is only just beginning

p.s. It is hard to believe
Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft is 43 years old
As only we can only reach the moon, Barely
##### Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
What's REALLY interesting is that the radio signal from
Sag A* appears to be pointed directly at us...

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
@jonesy
I suggest that you view and review jimmy bobber's Russian video in case you haven't yet. Even though animated, it is quite revealing that the radioactive Free Neutrons don't all come out of the starting gate at the same time, but only when the reactor "senses" that the Neutrons have been emitted by the rods on the other side from where the Freed Neutrons are exiting the reactor.
As I said - going by the animated video - not all 40,000 Freed Neutrons are leaving the reactor at the same instant - which makes the timing of the decay of all 40k suspect.
If the amount shot out from the reactor were only 4000 instead - I suppose that you would still insist that half of the Freed Neutrons would still remain in the GST - or any other amount to decay at a later time. Da Pussyman seems to insist that if all of the Freed Neutrons decayed at the same time - that the machine would explode. That's ridiculous. ALL of the Neutrons are radioactive but the walls are protected FWIU
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU

That video I posted was just an example of how free neutrons are created.
I'm not sure what was used in the experiment we are talking about here.

And why do you keep pointing out the video is "Russian"?

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
Moreover, how long neutrons survive inside a nucleus before decaying similarly depends on the nucleus in question. Iron-59 has a half-life of more than six weeks, while iron-63, with four more neutrons, lasts only six seconds. ***But for a free neutron, unattached to any atom, it's always about ten minutes***.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Now, who do we believe? Los Alamos National Laboratory, or the clueless, lying, scientifically illiterate idiot Benni? I know where my money is.
says jones

If the Los Alamos experiment supports other bottle experiments and continues to defy beam experiments, it could suggest new and unexpected physics. After all, bottle experiments count the number of neutrons remaining, while beam experiments count the number of protons created by neutrons undergoing beta decay.
-contd-
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
-contd-
@jonesy
Repeating:
"If the Los Alamos experiment supports other bottle experiments and continues to defy beam experiments, it could suggest new and unexpected physics. After all, bottle experiments count the number of neutrons remaining, while beam experiments count the number of protons created by neutrons undergoing beta decay.

>>If neutrons decay or otherwise disappear by some other process, in addition to beta decay, that would explain why the beam experiments come up with longer neutron lifetimes: they're only counting one of the ways neutrons die.<<

In other words, it could mean that both kinds of experiments are correct, but only bottle experiments measure the neutron's overall lifetime. Beam experiments measure its beta-decay lifetime."

I am still in the process of reading it; will get back to you when I'm done with it.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
@jonesy

The Lives & Times of Neutrons
"RIP
A FREE NEUTRON
BORN JULY 15, 2016
DIED 10 MINUTES LATER"
it says in the photo
However - how did the Freed Neutron die within its "half-life" instead of when it transmitted into a Proton? Or is the photo just a joke to not be taken seriously.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
Every ones lost their Bottle in half-life's

The Lives & Times of Neutrons
SEU, the eternal mindset
as this decay begins when this neutron detaches from the proton in the atom
as this starts the irreversible process of emitting the proton, electron, neutrino in 881.5 seconds
This mindset
nobody is able to accept this neutron ceases to exist when all its energy is used up
which
is when this neutron emits a proton at velocity in 881.5seconds
as this latest PDF
has departed from this neutrons life-time of 881.5 seconds
so
That they can squabble over differences in bottle versus beam in half-lifes
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2019
@SUE you said:

"However - how did the Freed Neutron die within its "half-life" instead of when it transmitted into a Proton? Or is the photo just a joke to not be taken seriously."

You can't comprehend the above because you have it cemented in your brain that a newly free neutron literally decays at exactly 14.7 minutes.

You can't reconcile your false belief with what you are reading. Naturally you are confused.
##### jimmybobber
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU

Or you are just trolling.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
Exponential decay in randomised decaying radio-active rock samples

SEU, the reason you get half-life in radio-active rock samples
are atoms at different decay stages in their decay process
as you plot this random decay on a graph
you arrive at an exponential decay curve
nobody is stopping to think why a randomised diminishing decaying rock sample that is diminishing in half over a set period of time is giving an exponential decay curve
is the randomised nature of atoms decaying in a rock sample
compared to the instant separation of 40,000 neutrons from their parent nucleus
where decay starts instantly that they all decay in the same time
SEU, can you not see why this persistent squabble over differences in bottle versus beam in half-lifes
Is simply so that they can create the circumstances to randomises this 40,000 neutrons
to give this Beta-decay process the random nature it craves to achieve exponential decay
So that this neutron never decays
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
>observ,

If you're still not convinced, take the undecayed neutrons, put them in another trap, and start your timer again. You'll find the same exponential decay curve with the same half-life in run number three.

.....and the reason you won't measure any Beta Particle Decay beyond 14.7 minutes by putting then in another trap is because the "undecayed neutrons" you reference DO NOT STOP decaying just because the first measurement run ceased, they continue their irreversible countdown to 14.7 minutes.

If you wait beyond 14.7 minutes to get those "undecayed neutrons" into the Proton Trap for another measuremenr, the only decay that the scintillation detectors will measure is BACKGROUND RADIATION & I seriously doubt if you even know what that is.
says Benni

True. The Freed Neutrons are, after all, radioactive. Any "undecayed Neutrons" are either still inside their nucleus, OR have started to decay while being classified as undecayed - timing is incorrect

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
SEU, got in one
True. The Freed Neutrons are, after all, radioactive. Any "undecayed Neutrons" are either still inside their nucleus, OR have started to decay while being classified as undecayed - timing is incorrect

As they say, you've nailed it
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU

That video I posted was just an example of how free neutrons are created.
I'm not sure what was used in the experiment we are talking about here.

And why do you keep pointing out the video is "Russian"?

says jimmybopper

Because the machine itself is Russian-made. There is a link to view the video in Russian also.
Yes, the video shows the Plutonium? fuel rods which is from where the Neutrons emerge - and are moved to another area behind that holds the atomic nucleuses so that the Freed neutrons are shot out of those storage areas. I have no idea what they're called. Not even sure that the animation is depicting Freed Neutrons, but the machine could be the type where
freed neutrons are created and emanate from. Although I must admit that the machine in your video looks very different from the picture that jones submitted.
##### jimmybobber
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU

But why does it matter to you that it is Russian made?

I never say I own a Japanese Gamecube or an American XBox.

But you love to keep stressing that it's a Russian machine and Russian video.

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
What's REALLY interesting is that the radio signal from
Sag A* appears to be pointed directly at us...

says Whyde

That is odd, isn't it. It could be a "distress signal" or just a coincidence that it is coming straight towards us. It might also be a message that is meant for some intelligent life forms on a planet in our immediate region of the MW and our telescopes, etc. just happened to pick it up. It could also be a "warning" that something is coming towards our Solar System.
I could see that these "signals" could be a way for similarly evolved intelligent life forms could communicate with each other although from far away if they once were the same/related and then some had gone off to other parts of the MW.
Why not? Humans are certainly NOT the only intelligent life forms in the Universe, after all. And why should they be?
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
jimmybobber> But why does it matter to you that it is Russian made?
I never say I own a Japanese Gamecube or an American XBox.
But you love to keep stressing that it's a Russian machine and Russian video

Jimmybobber, been searching for this rusky video
When I find it, let me know where it is
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@SUE you said:

"However - how did the Freed Neutron die within its "half-life" instead of when it transmitted into a Proton? Or is the photo just a joke to not be taken seriously."

You can't comprehend the above because you have it cemented in your brain that a newly free neutron literally decays at exactly 14.7 minutes.

You can't reconcile your false belief with what you are reading. Naturally you are confused.

says jimmy booboo

Of course it decays fully in 14.7 minutes. But what is also being said is that NOT ALL Freed Neutrons fully decay in that time span - but within a much LONGER time span after the first Neutrons had already decayed fully at the normal Mean Lifetime of 14.7 minutes.
But WHAT would CAUSE such a lapse in the normal fully decayed time span of 14.7 min?
My guess is that the counter is actually counting the PROTONS that had been left behind as the Freed Neutrons had made their respective transmutations into PROTONS, then mistaken for Neutrons
##### Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
How do you explain exponential decay and half-life to people who do not understand math?

Like I have said more than twice now, might as well try to explain it to a dog.

Innumeracy is much more widespread than illiteracy.

You can't fix stupid.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU

Or you are just trolling.
says jimmy booboo

Nope, not me. But you might look into Da Scheibo's trolling activities where s/he seems to be fond of following ME, Benni and RealityCheck into other physorg phorums to make dumb statements as a retort to mine and theirs. Is that normal for someone who is supposedly so intelligent and knowledgeable on most things? Of course not.
Ojorf used to do the same but has since ceased his/her need to be a nuisance. Da Pussyman seems to like to do so - possibly as a favour to Captain Beelzebub, who STILL hasn't explained to me how he has "far far far more experience with evil" than I have. Anyone who claims such a lie should have unequivocal evidence of it for me to validate. So far - he only tells lies and more lies while demanding scientific evidence that HE can validate as true. LOL What utter gall.
You may read my commenting history just by typing into your Search box. phys.org and then my user name.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
I don't see any percentage in trying to talk to someone who doesn't understand math about half-life or exponential decay.

It's like trying to explain it to a dog.

Innumerates are stupids and should be sterilized.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
Exponential

SEU, the reason you get half-life in radio-active rock samples
are atoms at different decay stages in their decay process
as you plot this random decay on a graph
you arrive at an exponential decay curve
nobody is stopping to think why a randomised diminishing decaying rock sample that is diminishing in half over a set period of time is giving an exponential decay curve
is the randomised nature of atoms decaying in a rock sample
compared to the instant separation of 40,000 neutrons from their parent nucleus
where decay starts instantly that they all decay in the same time
SEU, can you not see why this persistent squabble over differences in bottle versus beam in half-lifes
Is simply so that they can create the circumstances to randomises this 40,000 neutrons
to give this Beta-decay process the random nature it craves to achieve exponential decay
So that this neutron never decays
granville

Relative to existence of alleged Neutron Stars, perhaps?
##### jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
I've never seen Da Schneib troll anyone.

Calling you out for being an uneducated idiot is not trolling.

Furthermore it doesn't matter to me if Da Schneib is a he/she/it.

You seem to have issues with gays and Russians. That is a personal problem of yours you need to work on..

Da Schneib appears to be educated and knows what he is talking about.

If you called me Da Pussyman I'd actually take it as a complement..

##### Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
This is really simple. We can't afford the stupids any more. Pass tests or get neutered so you can't make more stupids. And can't vote.

Pay attention in school. It will be important later. We can't afford stupids any more. They're about to make us extinct. Sorry but your butthurt doesn't justify the extinction of the human race.
##### Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
@jimmy, but I certainly ask some nasty questions the stupids haven't got any answers for.

People who are illiterate or innumerate, not by circumstance but by deliberate choice, need to be eliminated from the populace. This is how it gets done. We can't survive as a species if there are nine billion stupids and a hundred thousand smarts.

Think of it as evolution in action.
##### jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2019
In the name of the SEU, the Benni, and the holy Granville. Amen.

You are the holy trinity of idiots.
I'm guessing you are the same person or part of the same support group.

##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
@SEU is a mercenary.

@granny is a psychotic.

Both are innumerate and pretend this is normal hoping desperately to enlist other innumerates.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
Plain and simple as that: if you can't figure out half-life you are not equipped to vote. And you should be sterilized to prevent you breeding and endangering the survival of humans. Just like sterilizing cats and dogs.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
Oh, and being a psychotic or manifesting psychotic ideation on the Internet should be sufficient to deny the right to breed. And vote. No votes for stupids.
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
I've never seen Da Schneib troll anyone.

Calling you out for being an uneducated idiot is not trolling.

Furthermore it doesn't matter to me if Da Schneib is a he/she/it.

You seem to have issues with gays and Russians. That is a personal problem of yours you need to work on..

Da Schneib appears to be educated and knows what he is talking about.

If you called me Da Pussyman I'd actually take it as a complement..

says jimmybooby

You're very weird. No wonder you seem to favour a troll like Da Schniebo. You are like 2 peas in a pod. Is the troll Schniebo your daddy?
ROFLMAO
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
You ain't even got an argument against it.

Pitiful.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Exponential decay in randomised decaying radio-active rock samples

The reason half-life exist in radio-active rock samples
atoms are all at different decay stages in their decay process
plot this random decay
arrives at an exponential decay curve
nobody is reasoning why a randomised decaying rock diminishing in half over a set period of time
is giving an exponential decay curve
it is the randomised nature of atoms decaying in a rock sample
compared to instant separation of 40,000 neutrons from their nucleus
where decay starts instantly that all decay in the same instant
this persistent squabble over bottle versus beam in half-life
is to create the circumstances to randomises this 40,000 neutrons
to give this Beta-decay the random nature to achieve exponential decay
That this neutron never decays

Mathematical exponential analyses in randomised decaying nucleons
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
More noise from @granny. Since the neutron traps aren't blowing up yuo're an idiot.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Decaying neutrons in neutron stars

Decay of this neutron
Is applicable to mathematical exponential analyses in randomised decaying nucleons
to achieve exponential decay
that this neutron never decays
SEU> Relative to existence of alleged Neutron Stars

Pulsar stars
theorised to consist of spinning magnetised neutrons
as the instant separation of 40,000 neutrons from their nucleus
where decay starts instantly that all decay in the same instant
This dying star
in an explosive collapse
in milli seconds
creates a Pulsar star
theorised to be instant creation of neutrons
that decay starts instantly on creation that all decay in 881.5 seconds
this nullifies the theoretical theory of Pulsars as neutron stars
where this persistent squabble over bottle versus beam in half-life
to give Beta-decay the random nature to achieve exponential decay
that this neutron never decays
There by proving this theoretical theory of neutrons stars
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
And all Benni and Granny's unscientific woo is already proven wrong in multiple studies in the scientific literature. Read it and weep. Los Alamos NL tells us there is a half-life. End of argument. Go away, losers.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
Bah. Why should I bother to discuss color interactions with a psychotic?
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
I suggest that you view and review jimmy bobber's Russian video in case you haven't yet.

I suggest you read multiple papers on the subject, which measure the neutron mean lifetime, and therefore its half-life. There is no argument to be had here. It is well established scientific fact.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Relative to existence of alleged Neutron Stars, perhaps?

Neutron stars are a scientific fact. Catch up on decades of literature, including the GW and EM signature from the merger of two of them recently.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
And so to prove
Da Schneib> More noise from @granny. Since the neutron traps aren't blowing up yuo're an idiot.

jonesdave. And all Benni and Granny's unscientific woo is already proven wrong in multiple studies in the scientific literature. Read it and weep. Los Alamos NL tells us there is a half-life. End of argument. Go away, losers.

As the loosers weep and cry wolf
JD and DS
on bended knee
Gracefully admit defeat, in their inimical style
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
However - how did the Freed Neutron die within its "half-life" instead of when it transmitted into a Proton? Or is the photo just a joke to not be taken seriously.

Errr, the neutrons start decaying as soon as they are free. Within 10.2 minutes, half of the sample will be gone. Within another 10.2 minutes half of the remainder will be gone. And so on. It isn't rocket science.

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Gracefully admit defeat, in their inimical style

You have been proven wrong. Why would we admit defeat when all the scientific literature supports us? Go play on a motorway, or some other activity more useful than the drivel you post here.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
This means that each Neutron - whether Free or still enclosed in nucleus - is of varying age.

Nonsense. They are held in a pre-storage trap for a certain amount of time, before being released into the storage trap. The timing of how long they are held is exactly the same for each of the individual runs. Try to understand the papers.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
Trolls like @granny always claim they won when they lost. Troll SOP.
##### Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
jonesdave. And all Benni and Granny's unscientific woo is already proven wrong in multiple studies in the scientific literature. Read it and weep. Los Alamos NL tells us there is a half-life

It's a sideshow put on by a small group who imagine concocting a so-called half-life decay rate within a random population of neutrons.

It MAY have some small usefulness in measuring BACKGROUND radiation for calibration purposes, but nobody actually uses this so-called 10.1 minute random decay data.

To count 1000 neutrons at the start of a counting period & discover half the number of a given population of neutrons have decayed within 10.1 minutes has no value in measuring the 14.7 minute lifetime beta particle decay of a free neutron & is never referenced in detailed analyses of the three methods of measuring the 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate.

You Pop-Cosmology enthusiasts can fuss & fume all you want about what you think is great science, but it's just a math sideshow.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
It MAY have some small usefulness in measuring BACKGROUND radiation for calibration purposes, but nobody actually uses this so-called 10.1 minute random decay data.

Yes they do, you f***wit. It is a fundamental measurement in cosmology. And there is no background radiation, you tosser. How the hell would background radiation fall on an exponential decay curve, you moron? Christ, you are thick. Go mop some floors, you ignorant poser.

##### jonesdave
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
You Pop-Cosmology enthusiasts can fuss & fume all you want about what you think is great science, but it's just a math sideshow.

And you have precisely nothing. Not a tiny bit of evidence, and no scientific support for you idiotic claims. You lost. Get over it. Tosser.

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision. Experimental physicists have worked diligently to that end, broadly succeeding and improving the precision of neutron half-life measurements by more than a factor of ten in recent decades.

Los Alamos National Laboratory.
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
"Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision. Experimental physicists have worked diligently to that end, broadly succeeding and improving the precision of neutron half-life measurements by more than a factor of ten in recent decades."

Los Alamos National Laboratory.
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

"and improving the precision of neutron half-life measurements by more than a factor of ten in recent decades.".......which has absolutely ZERO VALUE in measuring the 14.7 lifetime beta decay rate of a neutron.

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
"and improving the precision of neutron half-life measurements by more than a factor of ten in recent decades.".......which has absolutely ZERO VALUE in measuring the 14.7 lifetime beta decay rate of a neutron.

What an ignorant tosser! The mean lifetime x ln2 = half-life, you dumb prick! The half-life divided by ln2 = mean lifetime, thicko. You cannot have one without the other, you idiot. Go get an education, you moron.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
JD, you just do not get it do you

Randomly decaying atoms in a decaying rock sample
is the individual decay of individual atoms
where that atom decays in a specific time that does not vary from atom to atom
because the atoms are in different decay stages from atom to atom
you have, randomly decaying atoms in a decaying rock sample
JD, when you have randomly decaying atoms
when you plot these randomly decaying atoms
reveals an exponential decay curve
because
decaying atoms all have the same decay life
but
as it not possible for all the atoms to start their decay process simultaneously
because the atoms are at different stages in their decay
although they all have the same decay life
they are starting their decay at different times
so
are randomly decaying atoms in a decaying rock sample
as all atoms have a fixed life-time
That is randomly occurring produces an exponential decay curve

Now JD, do you get it
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
JD, you just do not get it do you

I do get it, you ignorant twat. The papers I linked show that I get it and you don't. You lost. Go away, you pig ignorant tosser.

That is randomly occurring produces an exponential decay curve

Which is precisely what is seen in the neutron measurements, you f***ing clown! Sod off, thicko.
##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
It's a sideshow put on by a small group who imagine concocting a so-called half-life decay rate within a random population of neutrons.
Gee, @Benni, and here you been citin' em.

You're lying again, @Benni.
##### Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
What an ignorant tosser! The mean lifetime x ln2 = half-life, The half-life divided by ln2 = mean lifetime, You cannot have one without the other

Dead wrong, the 14,7 lifetime decay rate was measured long before anyone decided to concoct this stupid neutron half-life bullshit. The 14.7 lifetime decay rate has ZERO dependency on a mathematical expression of 10.1 minutes for so-called half-life decay.

It's a piece of fiction hung onto by those of you in the Pop-Cosmology clan living here because it's what gives you a meaningful reason to get out of bed in morning & trudge your way through what would be an otherwise uneventful day.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
You do get it JD, don't you

As you have now realised this is not in research papers
this has nothing to do with research papers
this has everything to do with randomly decaying atoms in a decaying rock sample
simply
decaying atoms
all of the same decay-life
starting their decay
at different times
when
mathematically plotted
produces
An exponential decay curve
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
It's a piece of fiction hung onto by those of you in the Pop-Cosmology clan living here because it's what gives you a meaningful reason to get out of bed in morning & trudge your way through what would be an otherwise uneventful day.

Wrong, shitforbrains. If it's got a mean lifetime, and it has, then it has a half-life. As does anything that undergoes beta decay. You are just too stupid to understand it, having not been educated in the relevant subjects. LANL says you are wrong. Nobody is saying you are right. You lost.

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
You do get it JD, don't you

Piss off Granville. You are a retard. Free neutrons decay exponentially. As proven. They have a mean lifetime. As proven. They have a half-life. As proven. Now sod off, you idiot.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
The human element
jonesdave> Wrong, shitforbrains. If it's got a mean lifetime, and it has, then it has a half-life. As does anything that undergoes beta decay. You are just too stupid to understand it, having not been educated in the relevant subjects. LANL says you are wrong. Nobody is saying you are right. You lost.

of randomly decaying particles produces an exponential decay curve
where the same number of particles
decaying simultaneously simply produces life-time
is plainly obvious in your tone
as this is not discussing pacific life-time
as it only require the life-time to be the same
and the particle numbers the same
when measuring life-time versus exponential
In randomised and simultaneous measurement of the same particles
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
^^^^^^Give up you clueless cretin. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, idiot.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
When you know you have been rumbled
jonesdave> ^^^^^^Give up you clueless cretin. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, idiot.

Pile on the insults, as only JD knows how!
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Pile on the insults, as only JD knows how!

Not an insult. It is a truism, based on much evidence.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
The neutron was discovered in 1932. Its instability was proposed in 1935. It was first seen to be radioactively decaying in 1948. And that is when the first estimation of its half-life occurred;

https://www.ncnr....FP09.pdf

##### Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
Unbelievable. Now @Benni is lying about 80 years of neutron physics.

All anyone has to do is read the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipe.../Neutron
##### Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
(Sigh...)
This is probably one of the stupidest comment threads I've ever seen on Physorg.

Half life is a probabilistic math tool used in aggregate descriptions of any number of things.
It's an averaging tool.

##### SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
Eighth Wonder Of The World: the Infinitely Dense Black Hole of Unknowing at the center of @Benni's cranium.

Roll up folks, and observe the Limitless Cretinousness of Big Bang Bozo Benni, as he struggles with, and utterly fails to comprehend, the concept of "Multiplication".

Gasp with amazement as Hard Facts are aimed at his head, and ricochet off in all directions, repelled by his Dumbass Superpower like water droplets off a duck's back. (His shirt has a BIG "D" embroidered on it by his adoring Mom).

Cheer as he tries to squeeze his whole body into a thimble the exact same size as his Woefully Shallow Depth of Perception.

Feel the ground shake, and your toes curl, in shock and awe as he thrashes about in his filthy cage and wails at the stupidity of the Whole World Of Science.

Marvel at his pet Magic Disappearing Neutron which he keeps in his grubby pocket and lets out for people to see - but it has to go back in his pocket before its' 14.7 minute lifetime is up!

##### Da Schneib
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
And I'm still askin', if all this is true how come these neutron traps don't blow up in peoples' faces?

That's the real sticking point with this absurd interpretation of half-life.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had
jonesdave> The neutron was discovered in 1932. Its instability was proposed in 1935. It was first seen to be radioactively decaying in 1948. And that is when the first estimation of its half-life occurred;
https://www.ncnr....FP09.pdf

Randomly decaying particles produces exponential curves
is solely
a mathematical derivation
a mathematical problem
in exponential curves
of particle life-time
occurring simultaneously
and
randomly
where simultaneously is life-time
where randomly is mathematical derivation of exponential curves
because
randomly or simultaneously
the life-time remains the same
I take back all my complements, JD
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had

You are the one that doesn't get it you stupid tosser. All the scientific literature says you are wrong. Now piss off you clown. A neutron has a half-life, dummy. Get over it.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had
jonesdave> You are the one that doesn't get it you stupid tosser. All the scientific literature says you are wrong. Now piss off you clown. A neutron has a half-life, dummy. Get over it.

This is about the mathematical derivation of exponential curves in fixed life-times
In randomised starting points of fixed life-times to their expiration
Where simultaneous starting point reveals their starting point fixed life-times to their expiration ending point
In other words, JD
This eternal nonsense of half-life, as all atoms in a decaying rock sample all have the same life-time
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had
This is simply the mechanics of mathematics in numbers and nothing else, JD
##### Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
You really do not get it JD, just when we thought you had

You are the one that doesn't get it . All the scientific literature says you are wrong. Now piss off you clown. A neutron has a half-life, dummy. Get over it.
.....and what about the "scientific literature" stating that the accepted lifetime of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes & poof it's gone all the while not sitting around waiting for some stupidly concocted exponential decay rate which conceivably extend a free neutron's decay rate into millions or even billions of years.

Applying that expo decay thing to an aggregate of 1000 neutrons, then apply your 10 minute half life decay rule you get these results:

1. 1000/2=500
2.500/2=250
3. 250/2=125
4 125/2=62.5
5. 62.5/2=31.25
6. 31.25/2=15.625
7. 15.625/2=7.8125
8. 7.8125/2=3.90625
9 3.90625/2=1.953125
10.1.953125/2= 0.9765625

By the time you get to the 10th ten minute increment, there is less than one neutron left.

##### jimmybobber
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Using the logic of Benni, Granville, and SEU the observation of Bismuth-209 alpha decay would be impossible because it's half life is a billion times longer than the age of the universe.

"Bismuth-209 was long thought to have the heaviest stable nucleus of any element, but in 2003, a research team at the Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale in Orsay, France, discovered that 209Bi undergoes alpha decay with a half-life of approximately 19 exayears (1.9×1019 which is 19 quintillion years), over a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe."
https://en.wikipe...muth-209
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
This is simply the mechanics of mathematics in numbers and nothing else, JD

No, you clueless halfwit, it tells us when half of the original sample will have decayed. And when half of the remainder will decay. Et cetera. As can be shown by looking at the figures I uploaded. Where we see neutrons decaying exponentially until 3000s.
Why don't you sod off, as you obviously don't understand any of this.

##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
.....and what about the "scientific literature" stating that the accepted lifetime of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes

That is the mean lifetime, you cretin. Look at the figurers, dickhead - neutrons decaying exponentially all the way to 3000s. Which proves you wrong. Definitively. Loser.

##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
By the time you get to the 10th ten minute increment, there is less than one neutron left.

And......................? That is > 6000s. Your point, thicko?
##### Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
Using the logic of Benni, Granville, and SEU the observation of Bismuth-209 alpha decay would be impossible because it's half life is a billion times longer than the age of the universe.
.....then we'll just take this & apply it to a neutron:

1. 1000/2=500
2.500/2=250
3. 250/2=125
4 125/2=62.5
5. 62.5/2=31.25
6. 31.25/2=15.625
7. 15.625/2=7.8125
8. 7.8125/2=3.90625
9 3.90625/2=1.953125
10.1.953125/2= 0.9765625

By the time you get to the 10th ten minute increment, there is less than one neutron left......So now what? Got fractions of a neutron you want to talk about? Unless you can explain how fractions of a neutron can exist, you run out of neutrons in 90 minutes.

##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
^^^^And......................? That is > 6000s. Your point, thicko?
##### Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
^^^^And......................? That is > 6000s. Your point, ?

Got fractions of a neutron you want to talk about? Unless you can explain how fractions of a neutron can exist, you run out of neutrons in 90 minutes.

##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Paul Huffman
North Carolina State University
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The saying
you cannot see the wood for the trees
applies to the mathematics of why randomised fixed life-time particles produce exponential curves
JD, the answer to this half-life conundrum lies in the mathematics
Mathematics is a completely separate science to Physics
JD, you have to investigate why a randomised fixed life-time in mathematical formula produces an exponential curve
when in simultaneous production of the same life-time in mathematical formula produces produce's simply life-time
the answer that you JD, are struggling to answer in these scientific journals is not to be found
because
we are unquestionably not questioning why randomising fixed life-time produce's exponential curves
because
Mathematics is a completely separate science to Physics
you have to go to source of the problem, JD
The mathematics!
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
^^^^And......................? That is > 6000s. Your point, ?

Got fractions of a neutron you want to talk about? Unless you can explain how fractions of a neutron can exist, you run out of neutrons in 90 minutes.

And...........................? So you run out of neutrons. What is you point, thicko?
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
JD, the answer to this half-life conundrum lies in the mathematics

No, it doesn't. It lies in the measurements. Dickhead. As shown.
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
And there is no 'conundrum'. Only for scientifically illiterate morons such as Granny and Benni. Everything that beta-decays has a half-life. Fact.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
^^^^And......................? That is > 6000s. Your point, ?

Got fractions of a neutron you want to talk about? Unless you can explain how fractions of a neutron can exist, you run out of neutrons in 90 minutes.

It is all in the mathematics, Benni
we are unquestionably not questioning why randomising fixed life-time produce's exponential curves
because
Mathematics is a completely separate science to Physics
this is where when dealing with fixed life-times
commonsense overrides physics and mathematics
this requires a completely singular mindset of approaching this conundrum
that requires breaking free of decay and half-life
It is simple to prove
get a 1000 buzzers
each with a specific frequency
set them so they stop buzzing in 881.5 seconds
start these buzzers randomly
then record when they start and stop buzzing
plot them on a graph
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
This is not half-life, this life-time

< It is simple to prove >
Get a 1000 buzzers
each with a specific frequency
set them so they stop buzzing in 881.5 seconds
start these buzzers randomly
then record when they start and stop buzzing
plot them on a graph
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
It is all in the mathematics, Benni

No it isn't you braindead f***wit. Look at the figures I posted, you twat. Those are exponential decay curves, based on neutron counts over various timescales, you clueless cretin.
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
This is not half-life, this life-time

Yes it is you f***ing cretin. As the scientists are telling you, you ignorant POS. Mean lifetime x ln2 = half-life, as the graphs show. Tosspot.
##### Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
It is all in the mathematics, Benni

Those are exponential decay curves, based on neutron counts over various timescales, .

The point being that your expo decay curve predicts an aggregate of neutrons will continue eternally decaying even after none are left beyond the 9th increment on my list. Duhhhhh?

I see why you chose to major in Anthropology.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
JD and half-life in life-time most clear

As night follows day
the cretin emergeths
on realisation
his cover is blown
blown clear out the water
with experiment most clear
so simple in concept
no child is confused
so clear cut in life-time
in randomised start
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
JD and half-life in life-time most clear

As night follows day
the cretin emergeths
on realisation
his cover is blown
blown clear out the water
with experiment most clear
so simple in concept
no child is confused
so clear cut in life-time
in randomised start
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock

Hey granDy, I need some credit here !!!!!! Do you have any idea how much time I spent solving Differential Equations to come up with that list I put above?

I wonder, do you think even an Anthropologist like jonesy still remains buffuddled when an actual calculation is done using his expo decay theory? He should extrapolate that half-life for the 40k neutrons in his cherry picked run & then come back & try explaining that he can't make it work because he runs out of neutrons within a few hours.
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
It is all in the mathematics, Benni

Those are exponential decay curves, based on neutron counts over various timescales, .

The point being that your expo decay curve predicts an aggregate of neutrons will continue eternally decaying even after none are left beyond the 9th increment on my list. Duhhhhh?

I see why you chose to major in Anthropology.

Dickhead. Lol. The exponential decay curve is a measurement, you tosspot. And there will come a time when no neutrons are left. You really are thick. The science shows that you are wrong, loser. Get over it, and get a relevant education, because nuclear physics is obviously well beyond you.
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
Hey granDy, I need some credit here !!!!!! Do you have any idea how much time I spent solving Differential Equations to come up with that list I put above?

What a twat! There are no differential equations involved, you idiot! What a dick!

##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
He should extrapolate that half-life for the 40k neutrons in his cherry picked run & then come back & try explaining that he can't make it work because he runs out of neutrons within a few hours.

I don't have to do anything. The actual scientists have done it for me. And they are detecting neutrons at 50 minutes. Which proves you wrong. Idiot. And what is the problem of running out of neutrons? I've asked you this before. What is your point? You are too thick for words, you poser.

##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock

Brainless clown. Can't even understand a straightforward paper. Retard.
##### granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
JD and half-life in life-time most clear

so clear cut in life-time
in randomised start
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock

Hey granDy, I need some credit here !!!!!! Do you have any idea how much time I spent solving Differential Equations to come up with that list I put above? .

Benni, it was your final inspiration that conjured this experiment from the quantum fluctuations
all we were left with were JDs cretinous interjections
which with your help cumulated in this simple experiment
as to carrying out this experiment
well, I will leave that to some with access to a laboratory
To seteth this clock
##### jonesdave
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
well, I will leave that to some with access to a laboratory

Already been done, cretin, and I've linked to the papers, you braindead tosser. Look at the figures. How often does the sample halve in number? Duh! Clown.
##### observicist
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
granville, Benni, SEU -- Give me a single free neutron.

It may decay in 0.01 minute; 0.1 minute; 1 minute; 10 minutes; 100 minutes; 1000 minutes; 1 mega-minute; 1 giga-minute; 1 tera-minute; 1 peta-minute; 1 exa-minute; 1 zetta-minute; 1 googol minutes; or, it may never decay at all.

The longer the time period, the higher the probability the neutron will decay. But that probability never actually reaches 1, which means the neutron may never decay; that's highly unlikely (to say the least), but it's possible. Neutron decay is random, and follows an exponential distribution.

You can't predict which neutrons will decay, but statistically, a group of neutrons will exhibit a mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes, and a mean half-life of (ln 2)(14.7 minutes).

And some neutrons may never decay.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
Benni, from the reaction in half-life
there appears an acceptance of this simple experiment will produce an exponential decay curve
where normally
every one would cry, half-life
as every one now is expecting an exponential decay half-life
are keeping a low profile
because
we seteth the clock
as what do
where do we go from here is the next conundrum
because
this experiment is not humbug
it cannot be ignored
as
deep down inside
it reveals an exponential decay half-life
Even as we set the clock
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
there appears an acceptance of this simple experiment will produce an exponential decay curve
where normally
every one would cry, half-life
as every one now is expecting an exponential decay half-life
are keeping a low profile
because
we seteth the clock

WTF are you gibbering on about, you brainless fool? The experiments have been done. Multiple times. They show you to be wrong. Sod off, you ignorant clown.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
there appears an acceptance of this simple experiment will produce an exponential decay curve
where normally
every one would cry, half-life
as every one now is expecting an exponential decay half-life
are keeping a low profile
because
we seteth the clock

WTF are you gibbering on about, you brainless fool? The experiments have been done. Multiple times. They show you to be wrong. Sod off, you ignorant clown.

Is this your self, JD saying this experiment shows an exponential decay half-life
Even as you set the clock, JD
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Is this your self, JD saying this experiment shows an exponential decay half-life
Even as you set the clock, JD

No, you f***ing tosser, it is the scientists doing the experiments. And who do you expect to set the clock? F888ing Martians? Twat.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
JD, what is half-life in the context of Bennies half a neutron

As Benni unlike your self has taken the time to list half-life
As you plot a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half.... on a graph the curve is exponential
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
As you plot a half of a half…. This randomised decay
Which is half-life, even though you set the clock as 881.5 seconds of life-time, JD
This is life-time pure and simple
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
JD, what is half-life in the context of Bennies half a neutron

There is no such thing as half a f***ing neutron!

Which is half-life, even though you set the clock as 881.5 seconds of life-time, JD
This is life-time pure and simple

No, arsewipe. That is complete gibberish. The mean lifetime is 881.5 seconds, dummy. Multiply that by ln2 (0.693) and you get the half-life. That is why the counts on the graph I posted shows the number to be halving ~ every 600s. That is half-life, you tosser.

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
Randomised life-time of 881.5 seconds
is half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half....
which is the buzzers reducing in number
is exponential decay of half-life
even though we set the clock at 881.5 seconds of life-time
This is life-time pure and simple
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
As all your efforts are just barracking, JD
This is life-time pure and simple
Old dogs can learn new tricks
But you are not old JD, you just sound old
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
even though we set the clock at 881.5 seconds of life-time
This is life-time pure and simple

There is no clock set at anything you f***ing clown. Stop talking shit. That is a mean lifetime. Mean = average, thicko. Run the experiment for various time periods, count the neutrons remaining, Therefore you know the number that have decayed. Divide your run time by that to get a mean lifetime. Multiply that by ln2 to get the half-life.
Christ you people are thick. Did you even go to school?
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Therefore you know the number that have decayed. Divide your run time by that to get a mean lifetime. Multiply that by ln2 to get the half-life.

Actually, that's bollocks! It's somewhat more complicated than that.

##### Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
JD and half-life in life-time most clear

so clear cut in life-time
in randomised start
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock

Hey granDy, I need some credit here !!!!!! Do you have any idea how much time I spent solving Differential Equations to come up with that list I put above? .

Benni, it was your final inspiration that conjured this experiment from the quantum fluctuations
all we were left with were JDs cretinous interjections
which with your help cumulated in this simple experiment
as to carrying out this experiment
well, I will leave that to some with access to a laboratory
To seteth this clock

Thank you granDy
##### Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Give me a single free neutron. It may decay in

0.01 minute- maybe
0.1 minute; -maybe
1 minute;- maybe
10 minutes;- maybe
100 minutes;-no
1000 minutes;-no
1 mega-minute; - no
1 giga-minute;-no
1 tera-minute; - no
1 peta-minute; -no
1 exa-minute;- no
1 zetta-minute;- no
it may never decay at all.-no

The longer the time period, the higher the probability the neutron will decay.
.....there is no "probability" here, it's 14.7 minutes for ALL of them.

But that probability never actually reaches 1, which means the neutron may never decay
It always reaches 1, in 14.7 minutes.

it's possible. Neutron decay is random, and follows an exponential distribution.
Lifetime measurement runs never discuss it.

You can't predict which neutrons will decay,
Sure you can, ALL neutrons unbound from a nucleus will decay in 14.7 minutes.

And some neutrons may never decay.
What's to stop them decaying in 14.7 mins?

##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Lifetime measurement runs never discuss it.

Yes they do, liar. They even plot the exponential decay curve for you, blind boy.

Sure you can, ALL neutrons unbound from a nucleus will decay in 14.7 minutes.

Wrong, as shown in multiple experiments. You lost. Loser. Goodbye.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live

Los Alamos NL.
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
Bennies immortal half a neutron in life-time

That half-life is actually life-time
that you can actually perform in experiment
this ethereal half-life
that randomised life-time
is by subdivision
is half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half....
that if plotted graphically
reveals exponential curves
so in the random nature of when particles begin their decay
although all their particle life-times are identical
randomising the start of their life-time reveals exponential curves
by the very nature of their logarithmic scale
of natural logarithmic is exponential
as even as half-life is Ln2.life-time theoretically mathematically
< It is simple to prove >
Get a 1000 buzzers
each with a specific frequency
set them so they stop buzzing in 881.5 seconds
start these buzzers randomly
then record when they start and stop buzzing
plot them on a graph
an exponential curve
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
In the life-time of good byes
Lifetime measurement runs never discuss it.

Yes they do, liar. They even plot the exponential decay curve for you, blind boy.
Sure you can, ALL neutrons unbound from a nucleus will decay in 14.7 minutes.

Wrong, as shown in multiple experiments. You lost. Loser. Goodbye.

That was the shortest of goodbyes
may be
it
Was a half-life good bye
##### Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
an exponential curve
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
......oh, you mean if the 10.1 expo is divided by 0.693 to normalize it for 14.7 minutes?
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
an exponential curve
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
......oh, you mean if the 10.1 expo is divided by 0.693 to normalize it for 14.7 minutes?

Tosser has been proven wrong. Awww, diddums! Lol. Can't understand scientific papers, can you thicko?
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
That half-life is actually life-time

No it isn't you f***wit. As shown. Mean lifetime of the neutron = 14.7 mins. Half-life = 10.2 minutes. You lose again, thicko.
##### jonesdave
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
Because we seteth the clock

Wanker. WTF is that supposed to mean, dickhead? You are an uneducated retard.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
an exponential curve
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
......oh, you mean if the 10.1 expo is divided by 0.693 to normalize it for 14.7 minutes?

This is the part JD just does not get Benni
he does not even try
they have been multiplying lifetime by 1/Ln2 for years
even though at this time of year the Shires are muddy place
We have learnt to avoid getting stuck in the mud
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
This is the part JD just does not get Benni

No you brainless twat, they are multiplying the MEAN lifetime by ln2, you f***wit.
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019

http://hyperphysi...lif.html
##### granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
TrollianJonesDave

Colloquially known TrolianJD
jonesdave> Wanker. WTF is that supposed to mean, dickhead? You are an uneducated retard.

An example of TrolianJD handiwork
as apparently there is no shame
in the inhabitants of those who
like TrolianJD
who inhabitants his bridge
his fin rot must be festering so
as how on earth
can you tell
when TrolianJD is in a foul mood
his fin rot symptoms
do not indicate
degrees of freedom
as when fin rot symptoms in normal Trollians subside
as in TrolianJD, his fin rot symptoms show no sign of subsiding
we can only stand over TrolianJD bridge
and hope that as this freezing winter snow subsides
TrolianJD will be released from eternal torment
that his fin rot subsides
as the spring sunshine
warms those frozen extremities
as under that frozen tormented exterior
lies a Trollian worthy of saving
but at times as these
TrolianJD
is a tormented Trollian
suffering the ravages of fin rot
Under his Bridge
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
An example of TrolianJD handiwork

F*** off you cretin. WTF are you talking about with all this clock bollocks, you retard?
Explain yourself, you cretin.
##### Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
No , they are multiplying the MEAN lifetime by ln2,
.....or dividing by it's reciprocal. Or you don't know what that is? I already gave it to you, maybe you forgot?
##### jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
....or dividing by it's reciprocal. Or you don't know what that is? I already gave it to you, maybe you forgot?

No, you lying twat, I already pointed that out, you brainless poser;

What an ignorant tosser! The mean lifetime x ln2 = half-life, you dumb prick! The half-life divided by ln2 = mean lifetime, thicko. You cannot have one without the other, you idiot. Go get an education, you moron.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
An insight into TrolianJD roots in Manchester

As we weep for TrolianJD
Master TrolianJD, I was knocking around in Manchester as a kid in the 60s when Hulme was 'regenerated'. Admittedly, the housing stock was bloody ancient and appalling. I have read a fair bit about it since, due to an interest in my family history, and a lot of them having lived around there, back in the day. What they essentially did, was turn a working class sh!thole community, into a working class sh!thole, sans community. It may be recovering its sense of community now, in which case they'll probably bulldoze it again.
Its early origins were as an overflow suburb, as Manchester grew massively during the industrial revolution

Where TrolianJD problems lie
https://phys.org/...html#jCp
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
....or dividing by it's reciprocal. Or you don't know what that is? I already gave it to you, maybe you forgot?

No, I already pointed that out
.......you mentioned nothing about dividing by it reciprocal. you don't even know what it is.

What an ignorant tosser! The mean lifetime x ln2 = half-life The half-life divided by ln2 = mean lifetime, . You cannot have one without the other,
.......or dividing by it's RECIPROCAL, but you still don't know what that is, but it doesn't matter because a decaying neutron doesn't care about silly math proposals, it'll just go ahead & decay in 14.7 minutes ignoring your dumb half-life math.

##### observicist
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
Benni -- you are wrong about neutron decay.

Neutron decay is a random event; it is not deterministic.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
As we weep for TrollianJD
observicist declares, Neutron decay is a random event
Oh observant one
As we weep for observicist, we weep thrice more in sorrow for TrollianJD
as he has no escape
as TrollianJD knows the truth while pandering to the observant one, observicist
it almost brings tears of pity for TrollianJD
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
However - how did the Freed Neutron die within its "half-life" instead of when it transmitted into a Proton? Or is the photo just a joke to not be taken seriously.

Errr, the neutrons start decaying as soon as they are free. Within 10.2 minutes, half of the sample will be gone. Within another 10.2 minutes half of the remainder will be gone. And so on. It isn't rocket science.

says jonesy

Exactly - the neutrons begin decaying once they are freed. But you are saying that WITHIN 10.2 min, half of the 40k Neutrons will be gone? 10.2 minutes is supposedly the HALF LIFE. So what you seem to be saying is that 20,000 out of the 40,000 (fully half of all the Freed Neutrons) will have decayed within 10.2 minutes, and then half of the 20,000 will decay fully after another 10.2 minutes (leaving 10,000) and then fully half of that 10,000 (5,000) will fully decay after another 10.2 minutes?
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
-contd-
In that case, the 14.7 minute Mean Lifetime is misleading and meaningless if all the times are random and the 40,000 Freed Neutrons aren't able to decay all at the same time. And you're saying that the counter was able to count off EXACTLY 20.000 that had decayed first at 10.2 min, and then counted off EXACTLY another 10,000 that decayed at 10.2 minutes AFTER the first 20k were all gone - and then the remainder all decayed randomly after that?
That would mean that the so-called "Mean Lifetime" AND "Half-life" of radioactive Freed Neutrons fresh out of the nucleus are subject to the influence of some other sub-particle, possibly the up and down quarks or something else - that would account for the discrepancy in the timing of decay of any or all of the Freed Neutrons. They Beta decay into a Proton no matter the timeframe, and then that Proton becomes....? If Free Neutrons decay into Protons, then there is no such thing as a Neutron Star.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
SEU, all this hullabaloo is apparently proving a star instantly collapsing into a pulsar as a neutron star
Obviously it cannot instantly start its 881.5 second decay or the theory fails
the randomised half-life has to be proved
but
what TrollianJD take on this is anyone's guess
It is certainly nothing to get so het up about, that's for sure
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
Benni -- you are wrong about neutron decay.

Neutron decay is a random event; it is not deterministic.
.....the clock of the 14.7 countdown begins at the precise instant the neutron is unbound from a nucleus and YOU can't FALSIFY that.

The precise amount of time a neutron transits from the nuclear reactor core is known & the approximate quantity as it enters the Proton Trap & scintillates. The scintillation detectors don't miss a single neutron beta decay event.

Why do you think you know so much about this that you keep making the same totally ludicrous statements about WHEN a neutron commences beta decay? It's NEVER a statistical probability, it's an Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics that a neutron separated from a nucleus will decay in 14.7 minutes, tough stuff to comprehend isn't it, especially when you're so steeped in Pop-Cosmology?

##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
SEU, all this hullabaloo is apparently proving a star instantly collapsing into a pulsar as a neutron star
Obviously it cannot instantly start its 881.5 second decay or the theory fails
the randomised half-life has to be proved
but
what TrollianJD take on this is anyone's guess
It is certainly nothing to get so het up about, that's for sure

This granDy is the sleight of hand he is interjecting to find the "eternal neutron". He just arbitrarily reduces
the free neutron population by 50% every ten minutes, of course not realizing after two ten minute cycles totaling 20 minutes there won't be any neutrons remaining.

The idea here is the manipulative math that does not reflect real nuclear science events. Instead of playing with the cards he actually has, jonesy, etc play with the cards they WISHED they had, but time is not on their side.

Go back up to that laughable list observ cooked up about beta decay rates that I debunked, that tells you everything.
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
All this hullabaloo to prove an instantly created neutron star in randomised neutron decay

As an instantly created neutron irreversibly decays in 881.5s
this heartache TriollianJD is going through is repeated throughout this land
ultimately
for what
to what end
even king Canute
tried and failed to hold back this tide
so
it has fallen to this
as the trollian hordes
push back this neutron beta-decay
it will fail, it always does
one day, TrollianJD will come crawling back
it is inevitable
Benni has spoken
the phys.org neutron supremo
this neutrons instant decay will not yield
It is an immutable law of physics
##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
@Benni and granville

881.5 seconds x 0.693 = 610.8795 seconds
They are calculating the number of 881.5 seconds and then multiplying it by 0.693 - instead of using the Mean Lifetime minutes of the full decay.
The figure of 14.7 minutes divided by 2 = 7.35 minutes, which is what we were going by - for the number of minutes for the Half Life of the Freed Neutron - which is why jonesy's 10.2 minutes for Half-life seems wrong.
610.8795 seconds divided by 60 = 10.181325 minutes for actual Half-life.
But jonesy and the LANL are counting the seconds with their counter/timer - not minutes. I didn't see anywhere in LANL that explains their method of enumeration.
Not sure about that 0.693 though. How did they arrive at that figure?
##### granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
SEU
It is simplicity its self

< It is simple to prove >
Get a 1000 buzzers
each with a specific frequency
set them so they stop buzzing in 881.5 seconds
start these buzzers randomly
then record when they start and stop buzzing
plot them on a graph
will reveal an exponential curve
but we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock

This is it in a nutshell SEU

Half-life in life-time most clear

As night follows day
TrollianJD emergeths
on realisation
his cover is blown
blown clear out the water
with experiment most clear
so simple in concept
no child is confused
so clear cut in life-time
in randomised start
that even if half-life
reveals in plotting a graph
we know it to be life-time
Because we seteth the clock
##### jimmybobber
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
@SEU

ln(2) = ~0.693

"A quantity is subject to exponential decay if it decreases at a rate proportional to its current value. Symbolically, this process can be expressed by the following differential equation..."
Benni should love this. Its a differential equation. I doubt he will follow the link however.

"If the decaying quantity, N(t), is the number of discrete elements in a certain set, it is possible to compute the average length of time that an element remains in the set. This is called the mean lifetime"

"A more intuitive characteristic of exponential decay for many people is the time required for the decaying quantity to fall to one half of its initial value. This time is called the half-life..."

"Therefore, the mean lifetime τ {\displaystyle \tau } \tau is equal to the half-life divided by the natural log of 2..."

##### Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
@granville
The overall Lifetime of each radioactive Freed Neutron is of the most importance - not the HalfLife - as it is the end of the decay period where the action really starts. Beta decay plus causes the Neutron to turn into a Proton while giving off the other 2 particles - AuntieNeutrino and an scrumptious electron (in your words). But when the Proton that once was a Freed Neutron turns into a Positron - well, I'm still reading that part LOL
I am wondering if the counter/timer reacts to the radioactive blip from each passing Neutron to count it as one, then two, then three, and so on. More or less like a Geiger counter, I would imagine.
##### Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
Not sure about that 0.693 though. How did they arrive at that figure?

> Egg.....it's the "reciprocal" of the natural log 2 I've been challenging jonesy to cough up, but he still doesn't know how to do it, the reason being that all he does is Copy & Paste math stuff without so much as a clue as to where it comes from.

I see jimbo took up the challenge long after I pressed jonesy to try it for himself & went silent,
ln(2) = ~0.693
but still managed to screw it up. Here's another way to get it: 10.7/14.7= 0.693

or if you do this in reverse: 10.2 / 0.693= 14.71

##### jimmybobber
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
@Benni

You literally just divided the half life a neutron by the mean lifetime of a neutron to get ln(2).
Bravo. So you must now believe in the half life and mean lifetime of neutrons.
I'm so proud of you. You learned something today.
##### Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
I am wondering if the counter/timer reacts to the radioactive blip from each passing Neutron to count it as one, then two, then three, and so on. More or less like a Geiger counter, I would imagine.
....you're on the right track.

The scintillation detector(s) detect the energy level of an emitted PROTON at the instant a neutron decays & records it sending it to memory. Several detectors may be used, depends on the quantity of decays you're expecting or the type of scintillation detector being used. I do this almost everyday in our lab employing scintillation detectors to count gamma radiation, using exactly the same ones used in the neutron lifetime measurements.

Geiger counters work differently than scintillation detectors, they record particle emissions from alpha particle decay, we have those as well..