Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO



Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino

Yes.

The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton
and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.

No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are not
separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a proton and
electron and an antineutrion, but measurements indicate it is not
"composed" of those particles.

VERGON

What measurements? My reference measurements indicate it is.

The standard model explains this as an
interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W boson; the large
mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay.

VERGON

See my other post re the quark, etc.


The binding energy of the neutron impels the electron and its mass
becomes the neutrino when released. Here we see that mass and kinetic
energy are associated but stay separated. One is not converted to the
other.

Hmmm. The mass difference (Mneutron-Mproton-Melectron-Mantineutrino) is
positive, and appears as the kinetic energy of the 3 decay products. We
call that "conversion of mass into energy", because it is.

VERGON

I repeat, the binding energy is mass that has energy. The mass becomes
anti-neutrinos and the energy is transferred to the electron.

This is the same as a classical inelastic collision. The projectile
has mass that carries the kinetic energy. The mass is transferred to
the target --- and the kinetic energy is transferred to the target. So
the mass of the binding energy becomes an electron and anti-neutrinos
and the energy is transferred to the electron. The reason you have it
wrong is because you refuse to recognize (despite tons of evidence)
that radiation has mass.


We have spin parity: 1/2 before the reaction and 3/2 afterward (as the
neutrino has a half spin).
We also have charge parity as the neutrino has no charge.

OK. You use the word "parity" to mean "no change during the decay",
rather than its usual technical meaning (behavior under spatial inversion).


Note, the mass of the binding energy is the difference in mass between
the neutron and the combined mass of the electron and proton.
This mass is 1.3891 x 10^-27 gr -- and this times c^2 is 1.24866 x
10^-6 erg
or .78 MeV -- the energy known to accompany this reaction.

Yes. Seems like "conversion" to me.

VERGON

Yes it does, doesn't it? Except for one thing. You keep making the
same error.
The mass of the binding force is not PONDERABLE MASS but RADIANT MASS.

Also bear in mind ponderable mass can be converted to radiant mass ---
and that radiant mass, having a velocity c, has kinetic energy. So if
you deny the radiant mass, you would suppose the ponderable mass
converted to kinetic energy.

And as has been said before, ponderable mass cannot be converted to
kinetic energy but
radiation mass can and is.

Note, the mass remaining after the release of the proton is enough
mass to form *two* electrons. The reason that does
not happen is because it would violate charge parity.
So after the electron is formed, the remaining mass, 1.38909 x 10^-27
gr
has nowhere to go charge parity-wise and so goes flying off into space.

The _energy_ does not "go flying off into space", the _particles_ do so

VERGON

I say, old boy, you should improve your reading/comprehension skills.
Re -read above where I say:
,... the remaining mass, 1.38909 x 10^-27gr ... goes flying off into
space."

Why would you think that means energy?



Question: If the neutrino is the left over after the proton and
electron are
released, it must have a negative spin also. Why, then, is the neutrino
charge
neutral and not negative?

"Negative spin" does not make sense. Spin does not add numerically, but
rather _vectorily_. The spin of a particle is the norm of its spin
vector, and "negative spin" makes no sense.

VERGON

To me it does because the direction of spin determines the charge.

That's why an anti-particle has an opposite spin.

You can go to quarksville if you want to, but I don't go to
fairyland.

The neutrino is neutral because it _IS_NEUTRAL_. Such "why" questions
are not part of physics.

VERGON

Maybe not to you, but to me, I want to know "what the hell is going
on"

By your philosophy, a proton is a proton, so there is no "why"
question. If there is no why question, the what the hell is quarks all
about?

You're not consistent.



But note that the standard model gives
_excellent_ predictions about the behavior of elementary particles, and
its structure would be completely destroyed if the neutrinos had
electric charge.


As an addendum to this scenario, there have been experiments that
show -- approaching a neutron's exterior there is first detected a
negative
charge, and then as the probe goes further, the negative charge changes
to positive.
Question: If that is so, then we have a proton surrounded by an
electron.
Why, then, do we not have an hydrogen atom?

Because we don't have "a proton surrounded by an electron", we rather
have quarks of differing signs.

VERGON

So then the quarks of differing sign surround the proton?

Setting the ridiculousness of that aside, how do you account for the
EXPERMENTAL detection of a negative charge before the positive one?



As an aside, can anyone tell me why the charge on the electron and the
proton are equal (though opposite) despite their huge disparity in
mass?

In the standard model this is due to the fact that electrodynamics is
described by a gauge theory, and the charges must be quantized.

VERGON

Is gauge theory, theory or fact? I prefer facts:


Please understand this grows out of my theory. Parts one may question
they can check for themselves. The rest must be accepted on faith until
one reads the theory itself. I don't think
there's much here not already known.

The following scenario holds notwithstanding approximations:

(If the equations are distorted, they can be found in
http://www.wbabin.net
Go to LIST OF AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon.)


We are answering the following question:

Why are the charges on the electron and proton equal (though opposite)
despite a huge disparity in mass?




I use the Bohr magnaton as the magnetic moment of the electron ---
mu_B

The angular momentum is
--------------------------------------------------- IW





_
The electron charge is in electrostatic units (e.s.u,)
------------------- q





+
The proton charge
----------------------------------------------------------- q


The proton magnetic moment is the nuclear magnetic moment-------
mu_N

The modular momentum of the electron *---------------------------------
p_e or mass of the electron, m_e, * c

The modular momentum of the proton
*------------------------------------ p_N or m_pr c



* Modular momentum is (particle mass * c) or
(nu * m-q *c)
where m-q is 7.3720385 x 10^-48 gr. , the mass of each element of
frequency, mu.

Or: h/diameter of particle ( the diameter is 1LS/frequency number
-- LS = light second)

Modular momentum is linear in as much as the individual mass elements
expand and contract, thus the motion is out and back.
......................................................................

We now investigate the relationship between these parameters.

First, we note that for the electron, mu_B and IW are angular.
_
and q and p_e are linear.

Here are the relations:



9.274670 x
10^-21 4.803618x10^10



/\ _

forces
mu_B /| \
q
|
|

|

5.684873 x 10^-8 sec

|
|
|
momenta IW
\|/ p_e

/
\ /


5.272533 x
10^-28 2.73079610^-17



|<----- 5.179287 x 10^10 ----->|


We note that force * time = momentum,
_
and mu_B q
--------- :: ------- Ratio =
5.684873 x 10^-8 sec
IW p_e


And we also note that the ratio of the forces and the ratio of the
momenta are equal:


mu_B IW
--------- :: ------- Ratio =
5.179287 10^10
_
q p_e


Thus we see the magnetic moment as the force created by angular
momentum,
and electric charge as the force created by modular momentum.


We now display the momenta and charges in terms of their physical
constants:

(where e = 1.60231 x 10^-19 C)

_
h q
e c
--------------
---------
4 pi m_e c
10







angular
forces
mu_B
/ \ q

|
|

|
5.684873 x
10^10-8 sec

|

|
|
momenta IW \ |/
p_e

5.272533 x 10^-28
2.730796 x10^-17

|--- 5.179287 x
10^*10 -----|


h
h
-----
-------
4 pi
D_e



(electron diameter, D-e, is light second/frequency number))






From the rules of proportionality we obtain:


_
q IW
mu_B = ---------- = 9.274671 x
10^-21
p_e



This is the relationship for the electron. We now ask, what is the
relationship
for the proton and calculate mu_N, proton magnetic moment.

We do this by substituting the proton mass, m_N, (in the modular
momentum) in place of that of the electron:
( m_N = 1.6749543 x 10^-24 gr)

+ +
q IW q IW
mu_N = --------- = ----------- =
5.050825 x 10^-24
p_N m_N c



+






q h
By the standard model, mu_N is given as -------------------- .
which yields the
4
pi m_p c

identical result.


REWRITING THE EQUATIONS ABOVE FOR THE CHARGES:




_ mu_B p_e
q = ------------------
IW



and




+ mu_N p_N
q = -----------------
IW



We now perceive the two charges as equal (though opposite).

IW is constant, and (mu_B p_e) is equal to (mu_N p_N)


We note that magnetic moment is *directly* proportional to the
diameter of the particles, while momentum is *inversely* proportional.

Thus they offset each other and the result is equality.


Put another way, the magnetic moment is inversely proportional to the
mass,
while the modular momentum is directly proportional to the mass.


V. Vergon









Tom Roberts

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... >> Yes you should have an angular dependence AND there should be no charge ... source is monopolar cf charge field from an electron assuming that the ... propagation and when they separate the also become charged and have mass. ... So a neutron and an antineutron will annihilate on ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... Tell me what communicates the movement of charge to the magnet and ... A free neutron decays in flight into a proton, an electron, ... >antiproton, a positron, and a neutrino. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: New Explanation of Hydrogens Fine Structure
    ... included the effects of the central charge produces a pathetically small ... given the small charge of the proton. ... bind an electron. ... it's the square of a charge to mass ratio made out of these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time
    ... Then we'll be able to figure out the "mass" of a magnetic monopole ... just as an electron has a charge of 1 electronvolt. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO
    ... Neutrons DECAY into a proton and electron and an antineutrion, but measurements indicate it is not "composed" of those particles. ... The standard model explains this as an interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W boson; the large mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay. ... We also have charge parity as the neutrino has no charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading