Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #632796 > unrolled thread

3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:51 -0700
    Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:33 -0700
      Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 20:18 +0200
        Using Occam's Razor + Similarity, that the gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 23:01 -0700
          How good are our machines//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 02:04 -0700
            easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 04:05 -0700
              Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 05:09 -0700
                Re: ArchiePooh, the APe shit's gamma ray is not a photon at all "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-11 09:23 -0700
                Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 15:56 -0700
                  Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-11 17:25 -0700
                  Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:09 -0700
                    Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 22:55 -0400
                  Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 22:40 -0700
                    Re: gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like the APe shit face "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-11 22:57 -0700
                    Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 01:18 -0700
                      Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 11:01 +0200
                        the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 23:23 -0700
                      Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 06:09 -0700
              gamma ray is not a photon at all wrong in APe shit's barren mind "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-11 09:27 -0700
          Re: Using Occam's Razor + Similarity, that the gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:51 -0700
        Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:19 -0700
          Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 12:54 -0500
            Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 18:16 -0400
            Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:29 -0500
              Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:02 -0700
          Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 08:40 +0200
            Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 01:39 -0700
              Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 10:57 +0200
                proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 23:09 -0700
              Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 02:03 -0700
                Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 03:25 -0700
                  Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 14:50 -0700
                    Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 19:16 -0400
                    Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 19:48 -0700
                      Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 04:46 +0000
                    Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 04:54 +0000
                Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+ moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-12 11:51 +0000
      Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-10 23:32 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#632952

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 2:18:20 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 10/05/2017 v 19:33 Edward Prochak napsal(a):
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:52:03 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:> 
> >>
> >> Question:: are gamma rays produced only by radioactive decay
> >>
> > 
> > NO.
> > 
> > Gamma rays are no different  than light or x-rays except they
> > are higher energy photons. Stellar objects can produce gamma rays
> > on a massive scale without involving radioactive decay.
> 
> It can be said, that with good enough exactness
> gamma photons are high energy photons
> that are not X-ray photons, i.e. they are not emitted
> by energy transition of electrons bound in atoms/ions.
> 
> Gamma and X-ray regions largely overlap,
> as the difference is in the origin,
> not in the wavelength ( WL ) nor energy.
> 
> Some gamma decay photons have energy of UV photons,
> while some X-ray photons have energy higher
> than gamma photons from most of nuclear reactions.
> 
> Sometimes gamma and Xray regions are arbitrarliy separated
> by energy anyway, according typical values.
> 
> See also ( join the lines if necessary )
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#Naming_conventions_and_overlap_in_terminology
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

Thanks, that both teaches me something (that I likely knew but forgot)
and confirms my answer to AP.
IOW, you cannot tell the difference between a 140keV gamma ray
and a 140keV X-ray, unless you know the source.

But in a sense AP is right. A Gamma comes from radioactive decay,
by definition.
ed
interessting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#632955

On 5/11/17 12:19 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> IOW, you cannot tell the difference between a 140keV gamma ray
> and a 140keV X-ray, unless you know the source.

There IS no difference, regardless of source.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#632978

On 5/11/2017 1:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/11/17 12:19 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> IOW, you cannot tell the difference between a 140keV gamma ray
>> and a 140keV X-ray, unless you know the source.
>
> There IS no difference, regardless of source.

That's because all photons are merely disturbances in the force (aether) 
so how that disturbance is created makes no difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633386

On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:54:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/11/17 12:19 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> IOW, you cannot tell the difference between a 140keV gamma ray
>> and a 140keV X-ray, unless you know the source.
>
>There IS no difference, regardless of source.

Meh, sure, you're both right.

X-rays, produced in electrical apparatus, were discovered first and
named first.

Gamma rays, produced by nuclear events, were discovered later and named
later.

The spectrum of gamma rays completely overlaps the spectrum of X-rays,
so to a physicist they're no different.

The difference is practical: if you produce them in an electrical
apparatus then they're X-rays, otherwise they're gammas.

It's all tetrapylectomy unless you're an engineer.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633451

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:29:33 PM UTC-4, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:54:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 5/11/17 12:19 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> IOW, you cannot tell the difference between a 140keV gamma ray
> >> and a 140keV X-ray, unless you know the source.
> >
> >There IS no difference, regardless of source.
> 
> Meh, sure, you're both right.
> 
> X-rays, produced in electrical apparatus, were discovered first and
> named first.
> 
> Gamma rays, produced by nuclear events, were discovered later and named
> later.
> 
> The spectrum of gamma rays completely overlaps the spectrum of X-rays,
> so to a physicist they're no different.
> 
> The difference is practical: if you produce them in an electrical
> apparatus then they're X-rays, otherwise they're gammas.
> 
> It's all tetrapylectomy unless you're an engineer.
> 
> -- 
> Goat

Thank you.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633028

Dne 11/05/2017 v 19:19 Edward Prochak napsal(a):

> 
> But in a sense AP is right. A Gamma comes from radioactive decay,
> by definition.

Using narrow definitions for gamma and Xray radiation
leave a grey zone belonging to nowhere.

If the origin  is not the excited kernel ( gamma )
nor highly excited atom/ion electron ( Xray ),
then what is it ?

E.g. Bremsstrahlung radiation of accelerated electrons during lighnings
is often referred as gamma flashes. Gamma or Xray ?
Are Compton photons from annihilation e- e+  gamma or Xray ?
( It is not a decay )
Are photons from A-bomb or H-bomb gammas
if they are not from a decay, but from a fission or a fusion ?

Using wider definitions may cover the gap.

Some of possible ways:

1/  If possible, distinguishing by origin in the above narrow sense,
    and by energy for other cases.


2/
Photons produced by particle conversions belong to gamma.
( even if gamma decay itself does not involve such conversion)
Photons produced by particle interactions
belong to Xray. (even if excited atom electrons - or electrons at all
- are not involved.)

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633030

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 1:40:35 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 11/05/2017 v 19:19 Edward Prochak napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > But in a sense AP is right. A Gamma comes from radioactive decay,
> > by definition.
> 
> Using narrow definitions for gamma and Xray radiation
> leave a grey zone belonging to nowhere.
> 
> If the origin  is not the excited kernel ( gamma )
> nor highly excited atom/ion electron ( Xray ),
> then what is it ?
> 
> E.g. Bremsstrahlung radiation of accelerated electrons during lighnings
> is often referred as gamma flashes. Gamma or Xray ?
> Are Compton photons from annihilation e- e+  gamma or Xray ?
> ( It is not a decay )
> Are photons from A-bomb or H-bomb gammas
> if they are not from a decay, but from a fission or a fusion ?
> 

Yes, hello thanks, i am shaky on Bremsstrahlung and Cherenkov radiation, never actually working with them. Maybe you have.

Question:: suppose we assume a gamma ray is a electron combined with positron, would it explain Cherenkov and Bremss better. I hear one of them has speeds faster than light.


> Using wider definitions may cover the gap.
> 
> Some of possible ways:
> 
> 1/  If possible, distinguishing by origin in the above narrow sense,
>     and by energy for other cases.
> 
> 
> 2/
> Photons produced by particle conversions belong to gamma.
> ( even if gamma decay itself does not involve such conversion)
> Photons produced by particle interactions
> belong to Xray. (even if excited atom electrons - or electrons at all
> - are not involved.)
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 

Question:: wikipedia wrote that reflection from a crystal by gamma rays is proof it is EM.

I kind of not buy that, thinking that a electron positron pair can reflect as well.

I think the most famous of all combinations in physics is the nuetron = proton + electron + residual energy.

And now the second most important combination in physics is Gamma ray = electron + positron + residual energy

Question:: do neutrons reflect upon a crystal? If yes, then crystal reflection is no proof whatsoever that something is EM.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633031

On 05/12/2017 10:39 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>>
>
> Yes, hello thanks, i am shaky on Bremsstrahlung and Cherenkov radiation, never actually working with them. Maybe you have.
>
> Question:: suppose we assume a gamma ray is a electron combined with positron, would it explain Cherenkov and Bremss better. I hear one of them has speeds faster than light.
>
No, gamma rays consist of photons.

Positronium, consitiing of an electron and a positron,
anihilates producing 2 or 4 photons,
if electron and positron spins are antiparallel,
or 3 or 5 photons, if their spins are parallel.

Bremsstrahlung radiation photons are emitted,
if a charged particle is decellerated.

Cherenkov radiation photons are emitted,
if a charged particle is moving faster than speed of light in *medium*.

>
> Question:: wikipedia wrote that reflection from a crystal by gamma rays is proof it is EM.

there is much such evidence than this.
The whole crystallography is based on diffraction of X-rays
on a crystall atomic lattice.
>
> Question:: do neutrons reflect upon a crystal? If yes, then crystal reflection is no proof whatsoever that something is EM.
>
Very rarely, as a collision with kernels.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633129 — proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 3:57:07 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 10:39 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> >>
> >
> > Yes, hello thanks, i am shaky on Bremsstrahlung and Cherenkov radiation, never actually working with them. Maybe you have.
> >
> > Question:: suppose we assume a gamma ray is a electron combined with positron, would it explain Cherenkov and Bremss better. I hear one of them has speeds faster than light.
> >
> No, gamma rays consist of photons.
> 

Well, I think no-one has really looked into this deeply enough. No physicist with a good Logical mind has said-- hey, hold on a minute, you have two trains of types of photons-- you have one train of X-rays and another of gamma rays, and that just is sloppy, and Nature is never sloppy.

So, the likelihood is that gamma rays are not photons at all but a composite of two charged particles that neutralize the electric charge.

So, on one side are sloppy physicists who cling to rules, but never have a penetrating logical mind.

On the other side, is a person of high logic, saying, there is too much sloppiness in photon category, and Nature just is not sloppy.

> Positronium, consitiing of an electron and a positron,
> anihilates producing 2 or 4 photons,
> if electron and positron spins are antiparallel,
> or 3 or 5 photons, if their spins are parallel.
> 

Yes, I know that. It is Pair Production from a high energy gamma ray. But here is where most physicists are unreasonable and obtuse, to think that a gamma ray is a photon, up until, it decides to split apart into a electron and positron. A logical person would say, the gamma was always a electron + positron, and that it just decided to come apart.

So, one has to be really obtuse to think gamma was photon then became electron+positron, when a more logical person would say electron + positron becomes electron + positron.

In the moment of pair production what happens is not a complete transformation of a photon into electron+positron, for the gamma was always a electron + positron. So in the instant of Pair Production-- the lock of electron with positron came loose and became unlocked so the two could go their separate ways.

Same story can be said of the Neutron, of course the obtuse physics crowd thinks a neutron is only a neutron, but those of a Logical mind, a rarity in any science, but a logical mind says, now, to make a neutron you put together a proton with electron plus some added energy, and when a free neutron decays, it decays into what it was built of-- a proton plus electron plus some energy.

So, the era of being obtuse physicists about particles is and should come to an end.


> Bremsstrahlung radiation photons are emitted,
> if a charged particle is decellerated.
> 
> Cherenkov radiation photons are emitted,
> if a charged particle is moving faster than speed of light in *medium*.
> 

Let us call it the phase velocity of light, so that we do not contradict faster than speed of light.

We have a faster speed than the phase velocity of light.

Now here, all we need is a faster speed of one item over the other item, we really do not need charge involved, just speed involved. Like a Sonic boom of a airplane that is going faster than the speed of sound. No charge involved in the sonic boom. Same for Cherenkov, is like a light-boom of one speed faster than the phase speed of light. So, then , the gamma rays as electron+positron moving at faster than the phase speed of light, can easily cause Cherenkov blue radiation.

> >
> > Question:: wikipedia wrote that reflection from a crystal by gamma rays is proof it is EM.
> 
> there is much such evidence than this.
> The whole crystallography is based on diffraction of X-rays
> on a crystall atomic lattice.
> >
> > Question:: do neutrons reflect upon a crystal? If yes, then crystal reflection is no proof whatsoever that something is EM.
> >
> Very rarely, as a collision with kernels.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 

Shoddy reasoning to pin the Gamma ray as photon because of reflection. Read that Beryllium reflects neutrons, and no physicist is daft in saying neutrons are photons.

So my proof so far, is an excellent proof-- Pair Production-- for if electron + positron comes from that, means gamma rays have been and always will be a combo of mass particles, but whether the less energetic gamma rays are electron+positron, I need to work out.

One thing the less energy gamma rays may be are a combo of neutrino with antineutrino.

But that would suggest the neutrino would have a rest mass.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633033 — Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

First i want to apologize for "faster than speed of light" when i should have said phase velocity of light.

But now i think i have proof that the Gamma ray particle is not EM but is in fact a combination of electron + positron.

If the gamma was merely EM it would not create Cherenkov radiation but rather by superposition principle superimpose with ambient EM. On the other hand, if Gamma was a fast moving rest-mass particle, like a beta particle, it would create Cherenkov radiation.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633036 — Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

Alright it says beryllium reflects neutrons, so i suspect that when someone says gamma ray reflection is proof of gamma rays as being EM is a bogus claim.

Now since the neutron is neutral charge and since gamma = electron + positron is neutral, has anyone tried shining a beam of gamma rays upon beryllium to see if they reflect.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633080 — Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

Also, there should have been a 4th radioactive decay emitter
1) helium nuclei
2) electron
3) gamma = electron+positron
4) neutron

Now the fact that in all of physics there is no proton decay emission reinforces the idea that there is only attraction force in physics and what was thought of as "like repels" is really the Pauli Exclusion Principle of denial of same space occupancy DSSO.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633096 — Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

On 5/12/2017 5:50 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Also, there should have been a 4th radioactive decay emitter
> 1) helium nuclei
> 2) electron
> 3) gamma = electron+positron
> 4) neutron
>
> Now the fact that in all of physics there is no proton decay emission reinforces the idea that there is only attraction force in physics and what was thought of as "like repels" is really the Pauli Exclusion Principle of denial of same space occupancy DSSO.
>
> AP
>
I am so amazed at life that there actually could be a human being who is 
dumber than SmellBert!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633105 — Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Also, there should have been a 4th radioactive decay emitter
> 1) helium nuclei
> 2) electron
> 3) gamma = electron+positron
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How many times do you have to be told this is false?

Man you are one stubborn dude.
 ed 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633114 — Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes:

>On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Also, there should have been a 4th radioactive decay emitter
>> 1) helium nuclei
>> 2) electron
>> 3) gamma = electron+positron
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How many times do you have to be told this is false?

>Man you are one stubborn dude.

That's how he operates. He's been doing that for years and years.

First he'll ask a science question, or speculate somehow.  Sometimes
normal, sometimes bizarre.

He may get responses, frequently telling him his speculation is wrong or
answer his question (frequently "no"). Some may try to give more details.

He may or may not acknowledge replies but he'll ignore the answer given
(unless it's affirmative).  He'll ask the same question in a different way
or ask questions about details that would support his speculation.

He'll write more (mostly talking to himself), and as time goes on he
becomes more and more convinced of the truthfulness of his speculation.
If people tell him he's wrong, he'll either ignore them (like he ignored
you), or he'll insult them, saying they're not using logic or they're
failures of physics.

He'll write more, making his speculation sound more and more true until he
states it's an established fact.  He'll change other facts (alternative
facts, anyone?) to support his claims (like saying spiral galaxies show
solid body rotation).

Shortly, he'll Proclaim a New Law or Discovery of Physics.  Just wait
about a week, he'll announce he has "discovered" that gamma rays are a
bound e+e- pair and x-rays are photons. And perhaps name the discovery
after himself. And insult anyone (as a failure in physics) that states his
new discovery/law is wrong. Just wait.

I've seen this pattern repeat many, many times over the years. He hates me
because I've pointed out where he's gone wrong many, many times over the
years.  He repeatedly insults me as an illogical failure of physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633115 — Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Now the fact that in all of physics there is no proton decay emission 
>reinforces the idea that there is only attraction force in physics

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_emission

Very rare but not nonexistent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633037 — Re: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>But now i think i have proof that the Gamma ray particle is not EM but is
>in fact a combination of electron + positron.

>If the gamma was merely EM it would not create Cherenkov radiation but 
>rather by superposition principle superimpose with ambient EM. On the 
>other hand, if Gamma was a fast moving rest-mass particle, like a beta 
>particle, it would create Cherenkov radiation.

Well, there you go.  Gammas don't produce Cherenkov radiation. Cherenkov 
radiation is produced by charged particles moving faster than the speed
of light in that medium, and gammas aren't charged.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#632922

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:33:19 PM UTC+3, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:52:03 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:> 
> > 
> > Question:: are gamma rays produced only by radioactive decay
> > 
> 
> NO.
> 
> Gamma rays are no different  than light or x-rays except they
> are higher energy photons. Stellar objects can produce gamma rays
> on a massive scale without involving radioactive decay.
> 
> You're welcome.


=====================


the basic knowledge that Mr  genius ''
Uranium'' does not know :
is 

the only difference between gamma and  longer e m   IS THE FREQUANCY OF THEM !!!
2
see my  new thread 
'THE HELIX MODEL OF THE PHOTON ''

TIA
Y.Porat
=====================================
 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web