Re: Isotope decay chains
From: Angelo (patrik56_at_libero.it)
Date: 02/10/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Problems"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Bell Tolls for Dinky-Donkey"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Feb 2005 04:51:41 -0800
Y.Porat wrote:
> Angelo wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Angelo wrote:
> > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > Angelo wrote:
> >
> > > > [snip]
> a lot of snipping needed!
>
> >
> > Dear Porat,
> >
> > I'm noticing that a little bit of animosity is growing
> > in your replies. This disappoints me. I have to say
> > that I can hardly conceive to keep on with a
> > raging discussion.
> and if you are familiar with some phsycology
> the usual process of a discusser
> (not to mesion this ng as a 'pirrana pool'
> is that the incoming comments will neneraly be authomatically
> to refute the last argument of your fellow
> so not too serious
> such 'tention between discussers that keep a long dscussion
> is ..... legitimate
As I said in the premise, I think otherwise.
> ---------
[snip]
> > Has the HUP been falsified so far?
>
> i dont know about that
> i only know that one has to realy know how and when to use it:
> it is tested on the atomic level
> but i wonder if ever verified how and how much of it
> is working in the much smaller nuclear realm?
> it migh tbe that that h of Plank
> has to be replaced by another consytant?
> 2 does anyone realy known waht are the momentum or the deltaX
> in the nuclear realm???
> so my suggestion is not to make an authi\omatic jump to conclusions
> from the success of HUP in atomic level to inner nuc level
> ie in addition wrong assumptions abouth the P or X as i sayed before.
>
> 3 iirc the uncertainty is orriginally about measurements only!1
> and no one ever measured those inner data of the nuc.
> -------------
> -----------------
> > >From the little I know of your model of the nucleus
> > I'd say that you have great opportunities: if you can
> > prove that model, then you automatically falsify the
> > HUP, AFAIK.
> not at all
> see above i dont think there is any contradiction
> between my model that is far verified and the HUP
> the contradiction is only in the hands of my personal enemies..
[OT/on] - I got the feeling that, strangely as it may appear,
you seem to like having enemies. Is it so? And if yes, why?
(and please, if you want to respond, notice that I used 2 lines)
[OT/off]
So may I ask, after showing mine (albeit in a pale way)
what is your idea of the HUP?
> -------------
[snip]
> > That appears to me as a 'non sequitur'.
> ---------
> so you ok
>
> i asume you realise that above a certain level of dimensions
> matter is very definit or else nothing in our worlsd of matter
> would be definit geometrically!!
> so what is the limit acording to you btween the
> 'undefined geometric porridge of matter
> and *the defined worls of matter 9geometrically)
>
> can you put the finger on tha t limit and say :
> from this point upwads the undefined 'porridge' becomes
> a nicely geometric defined world ???
I can reassure you that a question like
''at what level the quantum-like behavior will cease
to manifest itself, in favor of a 'normal' behavior
as we know it in the macroscopic world?''
is well known to physicists (please don't stick to
that formulation of mine, for it may be not well
expressed). I suggest you would ask them in the
first place. I hope not all of them are your enemies :))
> ---------------
> > (delta p) * (delta x) >= (1/2) hbar
> >
> > where 'p' is the (linear) momentum, i.e. mass
> > (of the particle) times velocity (of the same particle),
> -----------
> see above who on earth told you what are those P and X?
My memory, but I think it's substantially correct.
You can ask a physicist, pick one that you trust.
> --------------
> > I hope a physicist could give a far better
> > explanation than that I tried above.
> --
> you give them too much credit!!!
See above, what else you require from me
in that topic?
[snip]
> > Another piece of information I didn't know.
> ok thats also something
[snip]
> > I presume you do have some evidence to say so.
> yes i do - my model.
> -------
[snip]
> > > do you expect me to do it in my backyard ? (:-)
> > > that is a job for an institute.
> >
> > You have to convince someone which has adequate
> > competence, equipment, and money to perform that
> > experiment.
> yess not so easy
> anyone whant his private rewarss!1
> -------------
[snip]
> > BTW, haven't you other couples of nuclides that
> > differ so much in their 'skeleton' to serve in testing
> > your prediction?
>
> -------------
> a good question i mentioned to you that
>
> Ar K and Ca are
> * a closed family* in my model
> they have a very eccentric skeleton
> so my assumption is that
> no one else 'in'
> no one else 'out'
> ie a cosed family!!
> can anyone refute it ???
I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect.
I'll try one: the information I could find, follows.
On the right side of the 'family':
42Sc (EC) 42Ca (681 milliseconds)
43Sc (EC) 43Ca (3.9 hours)
44Sc (EC) 44Ca (3.7 hours)
On the left side of the 'family':
38Cl (beta-) 38Ar (37.2 minutes)
40Cl (beta-) 40Ar (1.35 minutes)
Obviously, all listed isotopes of Scandium
and Chlorine are artificial ones; meanwhile,
all decay products (Ca or Ar) are stable isotopes.
What about 7Be, which decays (EC) to 7Li?
> ----------------------
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> ------------------
Best regards,
Angelo
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Problems"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Bell Tolls for Dinky-Donkey"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: Isotope decay chains"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
