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

Groups > sci.physics > #633139 > unrolled thread

gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 23:36 -0700
    gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 02:01 -0700
      gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 02:52 -0700
        ArchiePoo's speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-13 07:35 -0700
        Unification of Weak Nuclear with EM// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 16:37 -0700
          trying to get a sense of engineering a given amount of radioactive substance to run electrical equipment-- say a heater Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 23:08 -0700
            Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 23:18 -0700
              Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:31 -0700
                Seebeck effect//Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 01:29 -0700
                  Re: Seebeck effect//Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 14:52 +0200
                Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 15:03 +0200
                  got to start over with Weak unification to EM Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 11:29 -0700
                  Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:17 -0500
                  Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-16 05:20 +0000
                    Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 07:50 +0200
                      Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done?? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 08:36 +0200
    Re: gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 05:00 -0700
      Re: gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 05:14 -0700
    Re: gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:39 -0700

#633139 — gamma rays are not photons at all but a combo of mass particles// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
 like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 05:40:38 +0000

Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle

So, to prove me correct about gamma rays are not photons at all, we can do it in two manners:: 

1) we can set up an experiment that accurately measures the speed of gamma rays-- are they really photons then the speed is of light, but if they are composed of electron+positron combination, then the speed is less than light speed 

2) if the gamma ray is not a photon, then the decay of atoms who have gamma radioactivity should be far faster than atoms with just beta radioactivity. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
 like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:18:54 +0000


Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle

This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 

Quoting Wikipedia:: 
Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:48 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to
 come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39:48 +0000


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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 02:03:01 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:03:01 +0000


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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 03:25:15 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:25:15 +0000


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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:50:59 +0000

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 



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:09:32 +0000


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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:23:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:23:22 +0000

the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:01:21 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: 
> On 05/12/2017 10:18 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> > 
> > Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> > Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> > 
> The problem is Xrays have such a short wavelength 
> that particle-like behaviour usually dominate. 
> 
> Conventionally, Xrays region has wavelengths 10 nm - 10 pm, 
> i.e. 100 - 0.1 time typical atom size. 
> 
> Generally, the shorter wavelength is, 
> the more is dominant particle-like behaviour 
> and the more receding is wave-like behaviour 
> and vice versa. 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
> 

I suspect X-rays are fully photons, and pose a upper bound on what a photon can be, that is, no photon exists beyond the upper bound of X-ray. 

And this should come out of the Maxwell Equations, theory. Just as that theory was able to determine the speed of light, that theory should determine what the upper bound is for the existence of a photon. 

If there is a upper bound for speed of light- speed of photon, then by reason, the wavelength should also be upper bounded. To be bounded, by Logic, says a speed is composed of distance and time. So when you bound the distance/time, in essence, you have wavelength*frequency, implies that the wavelength is bounded. 

So, by logic, if you say that a physics law is the speed of light has an upper bound. You can also say, that the wavelength of light has an upper bound. 

So, what would a natural physical upper bound be for the wavelength of light, and here we are talking of small wavelengths of X-rays. Would it be the diameter of the proton, or diameter of electron? 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#633146

Alright, all is looking exceptionally good.

The territory of the diameter of electrons is nanometers

The territory of Xrays wavelength is nanometers

The territory of gamma rays wavelength is picometers which is 1/1000 of nanometer.

Looking good

AP

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

#633150

Sad but true that in the 20th century of physics there was no-one with a keen aggressive logical mind. All were weak and the strongest were Bell and Dirac and Rutherford, DeBroglie, but no shining stars of logic.

So poor in logic was 20th century physicists that they left radioactive decay in a silly mess.

So they found alpha particles to be helium nuclei, and found beta particles to be electrons. No problems so far, but what should occur next is finding neutron decay and naming it -- neutron rays as gamma rays.

Instead, what was found was a ray more penetrating than X-rays and about the same as X-rays.

But if there had been a logical physicist would have asked an important yet simple question-- can photon emission be radioactive decay at all? The purpose of photons is to move electrons from one orbit to another. So photon emission is commonplace and why should one emission be counted as an adjustment while another counted as a decay.

So, no-one of a keen logical mind in physics in 20th century because such a logical mind would have asked the question-- can any photon emission from an atom be called radioactive decay?

My answer is no, that radioactive decay involves the emission of a rest mass particle. If the emission particle has no rest mass, it is not a decay, not a weak-nuclear force.

So what are the decay particles::
1) helium nuclei
2) electrons
3) combo electron + positron = gamma
4) neutrons such as in Be-13 and He-5

Probably neutrinos only it means a tiny rest mass.

Strikingly what is absent is the decay of singular protons-- and why is that? It is because EM is a attract force only. What you think is repel is just Pauli Exclusion-- denial of same space occupancy DSSO.

Pretty amazing history story. No-one smart enough to ask simple questions-- can you have radioactive decay if what you emit has no rest-mass.

AP

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

#633170 — ArchiePoo's speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength

"ArchiePoo's speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength"
Pretty amazing history story, says <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
aka  APe shit  who is not smart enough to ask simple questions
>
>
>
ROTFLMAO 

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

#633217 — Unification of Weak Nuclear with EM// the upper bound of speed of light means an upper bound of photon wavelength = some X-ray

Alright, I really should not get too far ahead of myself. For I simply want a clear picture of how EM gravity works to carry the Sun and its planets through space. And here I find myself correcting the weak-nuclear force. But maybe, just maybe that was a fortuitous meandering.

I recall how I unified the Strong Nuclear Force with EM, and that was really a beautiful unification for it was quick easy and simple. All it took was a recognition that the Chemical bond in chemistry of ionic, covalent, metallic bond, that the numbers of these bonds matched the numbers for the protons and neutrons bonded together to form a nucleus, all from the Coulomb force. In other words, when you see a piece of iron of its iron atoms bonded together is the same as if you visited the nucleus of an atom and saw the protons and neutrons bonded together all by the EM Coulomb force. It was a mere scaling down to unify Strong Nuclear Force with EM Coulomb force.

But now, let me unify Weak Nuclear with EM. Now Old Physics, those bozos with Big Bang and black holes and dark matter and gravity waves, no way are those bozos going to have their acclaimed Weak unified to EM, correct. No way. No way that a goon who believes in all that trash physics can find a correct Unified EM to Weak, no way.

So, what I need to unify Weak with EM, is a simple idea, just as Chemical bond scaled down unifies Strong Nuclear with EM.

Is there something I can scale down from chemistry to unify Weak with EM?

Well, my recent exploits in radioactivity, saying that there is a limit to how small a photon wavelength can get. Saying the gamma ray is really a mass particle of electron+positron. Saying the neutrino+antineutrino forms gamma rays where the neutrinos have rest mass.

So, yes, there is a model, and quite shocking in its simplicity, horribly shocking simple.

If there was ever a discovery of the simple in physics, this would have to be among the listed guests of that house of discoveries.

To unravel Strong Nuclear = EM force, I simply scaled down from Chemistry bonding. That the proton and neutron share the same math as a covalent bond of electrons bonding.

How to unravel Weak Nuclear = EM force.

It is simple, we note that beta decay is our largest radioactive decay in all of physics. Sure there is alpha and neutron decay, but Beta decay which is electrons is the bulk of Weak Nuclear force.

Now having a stream of electrons coming from a source, does that remind you of something? Sure, the flow of electrons in a current in electricity of EM.

In other words the Weak Nuclear force is none other than EM electricity in the nucleus of atoms. Rather than our familiar Maxwell theory on electrons in motion in stable atoms, here we have Maxwell theory on radioactive decay.

So we reduce Radioactive decay to nothing more than electricity.

Now sadly, I never liked the "neutral currents" of Old Physics, but here, I am going to have to keep them. Because when radioactivity involves gamma rays = electron+positron, the gamma rays are neutral currents. Along with gamma rays = neutrino+antineutrino are more neutral currents. And even in Neutron decay of atoms provides a neutral current.

So, what is Radioactivity? It is simple Maxwell theory in the nucleus of atoms and it does not require wires to carry the electricity the electrons. But the electricity in the form of beta rays is electricity is free space.

Now, maybe, just maybe, I needed to cover this, for to fully explain Sun and planets moving in free space as EM gravity, I need to see Sun+planets as in conventional Maxwell would have a wire track for the electrons to move upon, whereas in Radioactivity, the Sun+planets need no track to move upon but like beta particles move in free space.

Which reminds me, I need to post about future probes carrying a Voltmeter. Can we engineer a probe to have two electrodes outside the vehicle as it moves through space and record the voltage as it travels. Can we do that, especially on a probe sent to study Ida and Dactyl, our most important priority in space.

AP

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

#633227 — trying to get a sense of engineering a given amount of radioactive substance to run electrical equipment-- say a heater

If I am going to make the claim that the Weak Nuclear force is just electricity and magnetism, I need to show how a radioactive substance can replace a electric power plant in running equipment such as a heater, a refrigerator or a air conditioner.

Now some of our spaceships were powered by radioactive plutonium. But I need to see how that alpha particles can generate electricity. I see that there is a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator.

Now how to harness beta emitters. 

AP

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

#633228 — Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Alright, are there other engineering designs? Are we stuck with just turning radioactivity into heat, then into electricity. 

Has anyone designed a conversion from Beta rays to just electricity, bypassing heat stage.

I see Strontium-90 used as a beta RTG power source.

It looks like 238Plutonium is the ideal fuel for alpha particles.

But I wonder if there is a engineering design where we take the beta rays directly into electricity.

AP

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

#633231 — Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Well, this has momentarily set me back. To think that radioactivity of electrons cannot be harnessed directly as electricity but has to be converted to heat then electricity.

It is a setback to "pure theory", and i do not care about "in practise". What i mean is, if Weak Nuclear = EM, then we should be able to show in a demonstration that the flow of beta particles is the same as the flow of electrons in a wire. And if we have to always convert the beta particles into heat energy-- well we do not have the equality.

Now the production of electricity does not need to come from a thermal source in that a hydroelectric is a rotation or a bicycle wheel generator.

But here i want a special type of generator -- electricity directly from flow of beta rays-- if not for practical use for theory use-- that beta rays are electricity.

AP

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

#633232 — Seebeck effect//Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator

So i need a bit of a confirmation for the theory Weak Nuclear = EM. What it means is that the Weak Nuclear force is the same as electromagnetism of Maxwell theory, except it misses magnetism. But what it has that EM lacks is electricity in free space. The motion of beta particles is the motion of electrons in copper wire.

So, how can i join the two up.

I was looking some more at the RTG and pictures of a 238Pu plug red hot in alpha decay.

So now, has anyone engineered a plug of Strontium beta emitter where they lie inside a torus tube of copper and cause a electron flow of electricity but with a appliance attached to create a emf.

You see, what i want is a duplication of Faradays law only the thrusting bar magnet replaced by the beta emitter.

AP

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

#633238 — Re: Seebeck effect//Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator

Dne 14/05/2017 v 10:29 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
> So i need a bit of a confirmation for the theory Weak Nuclear = EM. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

-- 
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]

#633240 — Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Dne 14/05/2017 v 09:31 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
> Well, this has momentarily set me back. To think that radioactivity of electrons cannot be harnessed directly as electricity but has to be converted to heat then electricity.
> 
Direct conversion of beta particles to electric current
would be extremely lossy process.

It is like if you would power your device
from 1 megavolt DC source,
using a resistor to waste 999 991 Volts,
to get just 9 volts the device requires.

Thermocouples are several orders more efficient.

There are attempts
to use Stirling heat engine with the closed cycle,
together with a generator, that would be more efficient
than thermocouples.

But this has reliability disadvantage of moving parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

-- 
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]

#633247 — got to start over with Weak unification to EM Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 14/05/2017 v 09:31 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
> > Well, this has momentarily set me back. To think that radioactivity of electrons cannot be harnessed directly as electricity but has to be converted to heat then electricity.
> > 
> Direct conversion of beta particles to electric current
> would be extremely lossy process.
> 
> It is like if you would power your device
> from 1 megavolt DC source,
> using a resistor to waste 999 991 Volts,
> to get just 9 volts the device requires.
> 
> Thermocouples are several orders more efficient.
> 
> There are attempts
> to use Stirling heat engine with the closed cycle,
> together with a generator, that would be more efficient
> than thermocouples.
> 
> But this has reliability disadvantage of moving parts.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 

Yes, thanks, I did say that I needed it for theory only, not for practice as I knew it was not efficient.

But, I am going to throw out the entire last few days of theory making, and start a fresh.

I realized late yesterday that I could not get magnetism into Weak Nuclear, so I realized later that I needed a better model or theory.

AP

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

#633383 — Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

On Sun, 14 May 2017 15:03:47 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ... It is like if you would power your device from 1 megavolt DC
> source, using a resistor to waste 999 991 Volts, to get just 9
> volts the device requires....

If one could get them all moving in roughly the same direction through a
coil of wire, each one would yield about 1E+6 ten-volt electrons.

I seem to recall seeing a diagram of a magnetohydrodynamic generator
which did something similar.  It was many years ago.  There were
problems.  I wonder if they were solved...?

-- 
Goat

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

#633407 — Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes:

>Direct conversion of beta particles to electric current
>would be extremely lossy process.

>It is like if you would power your device
>from 1 megavolt DC source,
>using a resistor to waste 999 991 Volts,
>to get just 9 volts the device requires.

>Thermocouples are several orders more efficient.

I suppose that in least in theory there could be a DC-DC converter
circuit to convert that 1 megavolt low current into 9V, usable current,
rather than wasting the energy in a resistor.

I remember playing around with that idea of a nuclear battery as a
teenager. 3 parallel metal plates in a vacuum, the outer two connected
together as the (-) terminal, the middle plate had a thin layer of a beta
emitter on both sides and was the (+) terminal.  Output, maybe a million
volts at nearly zero current as betas went from the middle plate to the
outer plates..  The outer plates doubled as a radiation shield, too.

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

#633410 — Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Dne 16/05/2017 v 07:20 Michael Moroney napsal(a):

> I suppose that in least in theory there could be a DC-DC converter
> circuit to convert that 1 megavolt low current into 9V, usable current,
> rather than wasting the energy in a resistor.
> 
> I remember playing around with that idea of a nuclear battery as a
> teenager. 3 parallel metal plates in a vacuum, the outer two connected
> together as the (-) terminal, the middle plate had a thin layer of a beta
> emitter on both sides and was the (+) terminal.  Output, maybe a million
> volts at nearly zero current as betas went from the middle plate to the
> outer plates..  The outer plates doubled as a radiation shield, too.
> 

I suppose it would be very difficult to effectively transform
1 MeV electron to about 1 MV voltage source,
that would additionally bring huge problems
with insulation, spontaneous surface emission
and ultra high voltage DC convertor.

BTW, I like the idea to manage for myself some small working model
of the Stirling engine on the workdesk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine#/media/File:Stirlingmotor_in_Betrieb.JPG

-- 
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]

#633416 — Re: Sr-90;; engineering Beta rays directly into electricity-- can it be done??

Dne 16/05/2017 v 07:50 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 16/05/2017 v 07:20 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> 
>> I suppose that in least in theory there could be a DC-DC converter
>> circuit to convert that 1 megavolt low current into 9V, usable current,
>> rather than wasting the energy in a resistor.
>>
>> I remember playing around with that idea of a nuclear battery as a
>> teenager. 3 parallel metal plates in a vacuum, the outer two connected
>> together as the (-) terminal, the middle plate had a thin layer of a beta
>> emitter on both sides and was the (+) terminal.  Output, maybe a million
>> volts at nearly zero current as betas went from the middle plate to the
>> outer plates..  The outer plates doubled as a radiation shield, too.
>>
> 
> I suppose it would be very difficult to effectively transform
> 1 MeV electron to about 1 MV voltage source,
> that would additionally bring huge problems
> with insulation, spontaneous surface emission
> and ultra high voltage DC convertor.
> 
Also, this may bring undesired effects
for sensitive inputs of measurement devices, if present.


-- 
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]

#633153

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 9:36:41 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
>  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 05:40:38 +0000
> 
> Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> So, to prove me correct about gamma rays are not photons at all, we can do it in two manners:: 
> 
> 1) we can set up an experiment that accurately measures the speed of gamma rays-- are they really photons then the speed is of light, but if they are composed of electron+positron combination, then the speed is less than light speed 
> 
> 2) if the gamma ray is not a photon, then the decay of atoms who have gamma radioactivity should be far faster than atoms with just beta radioactivity. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
>  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:18:54 +0000
> 
> 
> Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> 
> Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to
>  come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39:48 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 02:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:03:01 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 03:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:25:15 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:50:59 +0000
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:09:32 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:23:22 +0000
> 
> the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:01:21 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: 
> > On 05/12/2017 10:18 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> > > 
> > > Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> > > Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> > > 
> > The problem is Xrays have such a short wavelength 
> > that particle-like behaviour usually dominate. 
> > 
> > Conventionally, Xrays region has wavelengths 10 nm - 10 pm, 
> > i.e. 100 - 0.1 time typical atom size. 
> > 
> > Generally, the shorter wavelength is, 
> > the more is dominant particle-like behaviour 
> > and the more receding is wave-like behaviour 
> > and vice versa. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
> > 
> 
> I suspect X-rays are fully photons, and pose a upper bound on what a photon can be, that is, no photon exists beyond the upper bound of X-ray. 
> 
> And this should come out of the Maxwell Equations, theory. Just as that theory was able to determine the speed of light, that theory should determine what the upper bound is for the existence of a photon. 
> 
> If there is a upper bound for speed of light- speed of photon, then by reason, the wavelength should also be upper bounded. To be bounded, by Logic, says a speed is composed of distance and time. So when you bound the distance/time, in essence, you have wavelength*frequency, implies that the wavelength is bounded. 
> 
> So, by logic, if you say that a physics law is the speed of light has an upper bound. You can also say, that the wavelength of light has an upper bound. 
> 
> So, what would a natural physical upper bound be for the wavelength of light, and here we are talking of small wavelengths of X-rays. Would it be the diameter of the proton, or diameter of electron? 
> 
> AP
========================
idiot   parrot !
the  gamma ray is a photon/MANY single PHOTONS !

and a photon has mass the  only mass !!

the beta ray
is as well   photons 
nut much  *** more**single   photons 
therefor moving slower 
but still fast !!

=========================================
'NO MASS' THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL  PHYSICS !!
=========================================
is it an answer of a robot ''for you idiot ??
======
Y.Porat
==============================

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

#633155

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 9:36:41 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
> >  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 05:40:38 +0000
> > 
> > Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > 
> > So, to prove me correct about gamma rays are not photons at all, we can do it in two manners:: 
> > 
> > 1) we can set up an experiment that accurately measures the speed of gamma rays-- are they really photons then the speed is of light, but if they are composed of electron+positron combination, then the speed is less than light speed 
> > 
> > 2) if the gamma ray is not a photon, then the decay of atoms who have gamma radioactivity should be far faster than atoms with just beta radioactivity. 
> > 
> > AP 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
> >  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:18:54 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > 
> > This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> > 
> > Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> > Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> > 
> > AP
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to
> >  come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39:48 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 02:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:03:01 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 03:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:25:15 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:50:59 +0000
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:09:32 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:23:22 +0000
> > 
> > the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> > 
> > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:01:21 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: 
> > > On 05/12/2017 10:18 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > > This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> > > > 
> > > > Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> > > > Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> > > > 
> > > The problem is Xrays have such a short wavelength 
> > > that particle-like behaviour usually dominate. 
> > > 
> > > Conventionally, Xrays region has wavelengths 10 nm - 10 pm, 
> > > i.e. 100 - 0.1 time typical atom size. 
> > > 
> > > Generally, the shorter wavelength is, 
> > > the more is dominant particle-like behaviour 
> > > and the more receding is wave-like behaviour 
> > > and vice versa. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
> > > 
> > 
> > I suspect X-rays are fully photons, and pose a upper bound on what a photon can be, that is, no photon exists beyond the upper bound of X-ray. 
> > 
> > And this should come out of the Maxwell Equations, theory. Just as that theory was able to determine the speed of light, that theory should determine what the upper bound is for the existence of a photon. 
> > 
> > If there is a upper bound for speed of light- speed of photon, then by reason, the wavelength should also be upper bounded. To be bounded, by Logic, says a speed is composed of distance and time. So when you bound the distance/time, in essence, you have wavelength*frequency, implies that the wavelength is bounded. 
> > 
> > So, by logic, if you say that a physics law is the speed of light has an upper bound. You can also say, that the wavelength of light has an upper bound. 
> > 
> > So, what would a natural physical upper bound be for the wavelength of light, and here we are talking of small wavelengths of X-rays. Would it be the diameter of the proton, or diameter of electron? 
> > 
> > AP
> ========================
> idiot   parrot !
> the  gamma ray is a photon/MANY single PHOTONS !
> 
> and a photon has mass the  only mass !!
> 
> the beta ray
> is as well   photons 
> nut much  *** more**single   photons 
> therefor moving slower 
> but still fast !!
> 
> =========================================
> 'NO MASS' THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL  PHYSICS !!
> =========================================
> is it an answer of a robot ''for you idiot ??
> ======
> Y.Porat
> ==============================
sorry typo

the Beta radiation  is of small** particles** 
therefor move  'slower' 
small  particles have mass 
no dispute about it
and still !
====================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -NO REAL PHYSICS !
========================================== 
is it as well a robot answer for you ??
===
ATB
Y.Porat
==================================

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

#633182

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 11:36:41 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
>  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 05:40:38 +0000
> 
> Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> So, to prove me correct about gamma rays are not photons at all, we can do it in two manners:: 
> 
> 1) we can set up an experiment that accurately measures the speed of gamma rays-- are they really photons then the speed is of light, but if they are composed of electron+positron combination, then the speed is less than light speed 
> 
> 2) if the gamma ray is not a photon, then the decay of atoms who have gamma radioactivity should be far faster than atoms with just beta radioactivity. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more
>  like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:18:54 +0000
> 
> 
> Re: easier experiment//gamma ray is not a photon at all, but more like a beta particle // if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> 
> Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Re: 3Question: Do all gamma photons, unlike X-ray photons have to
>  come from inside nucleus// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39:48 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 02:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:03:01 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 03:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:25:15 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Cherenkov radiation better explained by gamma ray = e- + e+
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:50:59 +0000
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: proving gamma rays are not photons// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:09:32 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 06:23:22 +0000
> 
> the smallest wavelength possible in physics// if so Gamma Barrier Principle
> 
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:01:21 AM UTC-5, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: 
> > On 05/12/2017 10:18 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > This problem is a huge maze of problems-- and i best learn from the history. In this Wikipedia quote two things stick out:: 
> > > 
> > > Quoting Wikipedia:: 
> > > Gamma rays were first thought to be particles with mass, like alpha and beta rays. Rutherford initially believed that they might be extremely fast beta particles, but their failure to be deflected by a magnetic field indicated that they had no charge.[5] In 1914, gamma rays were observed to be reflected from crystal surfaces, proving that they were electromagnetic radiation.[5] Rutherford and his coworker Edward Andrade measured the wavelengths of gamma rays from radium, and found that they were similar to X-rays, but with shorter .. 
> > > 
> > The problem is Xrays have such a short wavelength 
> > that particle-like behaviour usually dominate. 
> > 
> > Conventionally, Xrays region has wavelengths 10 nm - 10 pm, 
> > i.e. 100 - 0.1 time typical atom size. 
> > 
> > Generally, the shorter wavelength is, 
> > the more is dominant particle-like behaviour 
> > and the more receding is wave-like behaviour 
> > and vice versa. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
> > 
> 
> I suspect X-rays are fully photons, and pose a upper bound on what a photon can be, that is, no photon exists beyond the upper bound of X-ray. 
> 
> And this should come out of the Maxwell Equations, theory. Just as that theory was able to determine the speed of light, that theory should determine what the upper bound is for the existence of a photon. 
> 
> If there is a upper bound for speed of light- speed of photon, then by reason, the wavelength should also be upper bounded. To be bounded, by Logic, says a speed is composed of distance and time. So when you bound the distance/time, in essence, you have wavelength*frequency, implies that the wavelength is bounded. 
> 
> So, by logic, if you say that a physics law is the speed of light has an upper bound. You can also say, that the wavelength of light has an upper bound. 
> 
> So, what would a natural physical upper bound be for the wavelength of light, and here we are talking of small wavelengths of X-rays. Would it be the diameter of the proton, or diameter of electron? 
> 
> AP

Gamma photons first to leave Sun's core.Have short waves thus high in energy.Can take 200,000 years to break out of Sun's surface and 8 minutes to reach earth with light and heat photons.That 200,000 years is the key to my theory "Photons never slow down" nor bounce for reflection.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web